UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 75 FERC 61,078
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
18 CFR Part 37
[Docket No. RM95-9-000]
Open Access Same-Time Information System (formerly Real-Time
Information Networks) and Standards of Conduct
ORDER NO. 889
FINAL RULE
(Issued April 24, 1996)
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final Rule.
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is amending 18
CFR to add Part 37 containing rules establishing and governing an
Open Access Same-time Information System (OASIS) (formerly real-
time information networks) and prescribing standards of conduct.
Under this final rule, each public utility (or its agent) that
owns, controls, or operates facilities used for the transmission
of electric energy in interstate commerce will be required to
create or participate in an OASIS that will provide open access
transmission customers and potential open access transmission
customers with information, provided by electronic means, about
available transmission capacity, prices, and other information
that will enable them to obtain open access non-discriminatory
transmission service. This final rule requires (1) each public
utility subject to the rule to implement standards of conduct to
functionally separate transmission and wholesale power merchant
functions and (2) the creation of a basic OASIS system. In
- ii -
addition, some of the standards and formats for OASIS nodes are
prescribed in a document entitled OASIS Standards and
Communication Protocols that is being issued with the final rule.
The Commission also is establishing further procedures to
complete the standards for displays and formats. The development
of OASIS requirements will continue in a Phase II, in which the
Commission will continue to develop the requirements for a fully
functional OASIS.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This final rule will become effective on
[insert date 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal
Register]. Compliance with the standards of conduct and
operation of an OASIS meeting the requirements of this final rule
must commence on or before November 1, 1996. A technical
conference on any remaining issues will be held on June 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The technical conference will be held at the
Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington,
D.C. 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marvin Rosenberg (Technical Information)
Office of Economic Policy
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
(202) 208-1283
William C. Booth (Technical Information)
Office of Electric Power Regulation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
(202) 208-0849
Gary D. Cohen (Legal Information)
Office of the General Counsel
- iii -
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
(202) 208-0321
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission
also provides all interested persons an opportunity to inspect or
copy the contents of this document during normal business hours
in the Public Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20426.
The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic
bulletin board service, provides access to the texts of formal
documents issued by the Commission. CIPS is available at no
charge to the user and may be accessed using a personal computer
with a modem by dialing 202-208-1397 if dialing locally or
1-800-856-3920 if dialing long distance. CIPS is also available
through the Fed World system (by modem or Internet). To access
CIPS, set your communications software to 19200, 14400, 12000,
9600, 7200, 4800, 2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex, no parity, 8
data bits and 1 stop bit. The full text of this order will be
available on CIPS indefinitely in ASCII and Wordperfect 5.1
format. The complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format may
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, La Dorn
Systems Corporation, also located in the Public Reference Room at
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
- iv -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. PUBLIC REPORTING BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
III. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS
AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C. SECTION 37.1 -- APPLICABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . 17
D. SECTION 37.2 -- PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
E. SECTION 37.3 -- DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
F. SECTION 37.4 -- STANDARDS OF CONDUCT . . . . . . . . 26
1. Requests by Smaller Public Utilities for
Exemptions from the Standards of Conduct . . . 29
2. Suggested Revisions to the
Standards of Conduct and Timing . . . . . . . . 30
3. Whether to Require the Separation of Generation
and Transmission Functions . . . . . . . . . . 49
G. SECTION 37.5 -- OBLIGATIONS OF TRANSMISSION
PROVIDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
H. SECTION 37.6 -- INFORMATION TO BE POSTED
ON AN OASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
1. OASIS Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2. Posting Available Transmission Capacity . . . . 54
a. ATC for Network Integration Service . . . 54
b. Minimizing the Reporting of ATC . . . . . 56
c. Methodology for Calculating ATC and TTC . 60
d. Accommodating Flow-Based Pricing . . . . . 62
e. Actual Flow Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
f. Providing Supporting Information . . . . . 64
- v -
g. Long-Term Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3. Posting Transmission Service Products
and Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4. Posting Ancillary Service Offerings
and Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5. Posting Transmission Service Requests
and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
a. Posting Curtailments and Interruptions . . 71
b. Posting Denials of Requests for Service . 74
c. Transaction Anonymity . . . . . . . . . . 75
6. Posting Facility Status Information . . . . . . 78
7. Posting Transmission Service
Schedules Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
8. Posting Other Transmission-Related
Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
I. SECTION 37.7 -- AUDITING TRANSMISSION SERVICE
INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
J. STANDARDS AND COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS . . . . . . . 86
1. Summary of Standards and Communication
Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
2. Number of OASIS Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3. Direct Connections to OASIS Nodes . . . . . . . 92
4. Value-Added OASIS Services Provided by
Transmission Providers or Responsible Parties . 94
5. Transmission Services Information Timing
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6. Common Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
a. Company Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
b. Common Location Codes . . . . . . . 100
7. Data Definitions and File Formats
Not Covered by the How Report . . . . . . . 101
- vi -
a. Offers to Provide Ancillary Services
Provided by an Entity Other Than the
Transmission Provider . . . . . . . 101
b. Offering of Primary and Secondary
Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
8. Formats for Downloadable Files
Not Covered in the How Report . . . . . . . . 102
a. Standard Format for Data Used in
Calculating ATC . . . . . . . . . . 102
b. Standard Formats for
Transmission Studies . . . . . . . 103
c. Standard Format for Electronic
Submission to the Commission of
Transmission Tariffs . . . . . . . 103
9. Communication Protocol Issues . . . . . . . . 103
a. Internet Browsers . . . . . . . . . 103
b. Bandwidth of Node Connections to the
Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
c. Data Compression Standards . . . . 107
d. Other Communication Protocol Issues
Raised by Commenters . . . . . . . 108
i. The Requirement to Use FTP
for File Transfers . . . . . . 108
ii. Field Size for Path Names . . 109
iii. Files Containing More Than
100,000 Bytes . . . . . . . . . 109
K. COST RECOVERY ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
1. Costs of Developing
and Running an OASIS . . . . . . . . . . 110
2. Cost of Posting Resales of Capacity
on the OASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3. Cost of Posting Ancillary Services
on the OASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
- vii -
L. SECTION 37.8 -- IMPLEMENTATION IN PHASES . . 114
1. Phase I Implementation . . . . . . . . . 115
2. Phase II Implementation . . . . . . . . 118
IV. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
V. ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
VI. INFORMATION COLLECTION STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 122
VII. EFFECTIVE DATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
REGULATORY TEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127-144
ATTACHMENTS
List of Commenters to RIN NOPR
Standards and Communication Protocols for
Open Access Same-time Information System with
Appendix A -- Data Element Dictionary and
Appendix B -- Request (Query) Variables
- viii -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Before Commissioners: Elizabeth Anne Moler, Chair;
Vicky A. Bailey, James J. Hoecker,
William L. Massey, and Donald F. Santa, Jr.
Open Access Same-time Information )
System (formerly Real-time ) Docket No. RM95-9-000
Information Networks) and )
Standards of Conduct )
ORDER NO. 889
FINAL RULE
(Issued April 24, 1996)
I. INTRODUCTION
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
promulgating new regulations amending 18 CFR to add Part 37
containing rules establishing and governing transmission
information networks and standards of conduct. The Commission is
issuing this final rule in tandem with its final rule on Open
Access Transmission and Stranded Costs (Open Access Final Rule).
1/ This final rule applies to any public utility that offers
open access transmission services under the Open Access Final
Rule pro forma tariff. Under the Open Access Final Rule, the
open access pro forma tariff may be used by wholesale
transmission customers and by retail transmission customers that
are able to receive unbundled retail transmission either
1/ See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities and
Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and
Transmitting Utilities, Final Rule, FERC Stats. & Regs.
31,036 (April 24, 1996); this document is being published
concurrently in the Federal Register.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - ix -
- ix -
voluntarily from the public utility or as a result of a state
retail access program.
This final rule is being issued after a review of the
comments filed in response to the Commission's notice of proposed
rulemaking issued in this proceeding on December 13, 1995 (RIN
NOPR). 2/
This final rule becomes effective on [insert date 60 days
after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register].
By November 1, 1996, all affected public utilities must file
procedures with the Commission that will enable customers and the
Commission to determine whether they are in compliance with the
standards of conduct requirements contained herein.
Additionally, under this final rule, each public utility as
defined in section 201(e) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C.
824(e) (1994), (or its agent) that owns, controls, or operates
facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce (each Transmission Provider) must develop or
participate in an Open Access Same-time Information System
(OASIS). 3/ This final rule establishes Phase I OASIS rules
2/ Real-Time Information Networks and Standards of Conduct,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 60 FR 66182 (December 21,
1995), FERC Stats. & Regs. 32,516 (December 13, 1995).
3/ In the notice of technical conference that initiated this
proceeding, see infra n. 12, we chose the term "Real-Time
Information Network" to describe the electronic information
system envisioned by that notice. We invited comments on
whether we should substitute another term in place of RIN.
In response, a number of commenters suggested that "RIN" was
not a suitable name for the electronic information network
envisioned by the RIN NOPR, mainly because while some RIN
(continued...)
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - x -
- x -
that require the creation of a basic OASIS. 4/ The basic OASIS
required by this final rule must be in place and operational by
November 1, 1996. The development of OASIS requirements will
continue in Phase II, during which the Commission will develop
the requirements for a fully functional OASIS.
While the final rule set forth in this order is consistent
with the proposal described in the RIN NOPR, it also resolves
certain issues that were described in the RIN NOPR but left
undecided, and adds clarifications and revisions, as suggested by
the comments. As proposed in the RIN NOPR, the final rule
describes what information must be provided on an OASIS, how an
OASIS must be implemented and used, and contains a code of
conduct applicable to all transmission providing public
utilities.
As proposed in the RIN NOPR, we are issuing this final rule
along with a separate document entitled OASIS Standards and
3/(...continued)
postings may be made "real-time" most will not and that,
therefore, RIN is a misnomer.
After a review of suggested replacements presented in the
comments, we will abandon the name "RIN" in favor of Open
Access Same-time Information System, suggested by Virginia
Electric Power Company (VEPCO), for several reasons. First,
as noted above, the information system being developed in
this proceeding actually will be a "same-time" information
system, and not a "real-time" system. Second, VEPCO
correctly points out that the system will be part of an
existing network (the Internet) and not a new network.
Third, the name "OASIS" highlights that the system relates
to open access.
4/ Any entity may, for good cause, seek a waiver of the
requirements established by this final rule, either as to
the creation of an OASIS or for reporting requirements.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xi -
- xi -
Communication Protocols (Standards and Protocols) to help ensure
that each OASIS will provide information in a uniform manner.
However, the standards and protocols are not yet complete.
Consequently, we are inviting the How Group 5/ to submit an
additional report, on or before May 28, 1996, to help us resolve
these deficiencies. We will also hold a technical conference on
June 17, 1996 to resolve any remaining issues and to allow input
from interested persons. We will issue a revised Standards and
Protocols document as soon as possible thereafter.
We are moving promptly to complete the standards and
protocols to ensure that the OASIS will be operational and in
compliance with this final rule by November 1, 1996. In
selecting this date, we have balanced the need to have a
functional system of fair and non-discriminatory information in
place to support the Open Access Final Rule against the comments
that argued that implementation of an OASIS could not be
accomplished in 60 days and to avoid implementation during the
peak winter or summer months.
II. PUBLIC REPORTING BURDEN
The final rule requires Transmission Providers to
participate in an OASIS, designed to provide open access
transmission users and potential open access transmission users
with information by electronic means about available transmission
capacity and prices.
5/ See, infra, n. 13.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xii -
- xii -
The RIN NOPR contained an estimated annual public reporting
burden associated with a final rule consistent with the RIN NOPR.
In response to the RIN NOPR, NRECA 6/ filed comments with the
Commission that argued that the Commission's estimated public
reporting burden should have taken into account that Question 45
of the RIN NOPR asked whether OASIS rules should be extended to
apply to non-public utilities that own or control facilities used
for the transmission of electric power in interstate commerce.
7/ Based on this inquiry, NRECA argued that the public burden
estimate should have been based on the assumption that the
proposed OASIS rules would be extended to apply to non-public
utilities (even though this was not proposed by the Commission).
The Commission's task in preparing a public burden estimate
at the NOPR stage was to estimate the annual public reporting
burden associated with a final rule consistent with the RIN NOPR.
This is what the Commission did. An estimate based on deviations
from the NOPR proposal, as NRECA suggested, would have been
inappropriate. At the same time, however, by asking Question 45,
we identified the issue and gave the commenters an opportunity to
be heard before making a final decision.
Our final rule, like the RIN NOPR, applies only to public
utilities, and not to non-public utilities. However, as
6/ Attached to this document is a list of the commenters and
the abbreviations used to designate them. Several of the
comments were filed late. We, nevertheless, will consider
these comments.
7/ NRECA also submitted a letter to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) that raised the same issue.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xiii -
- xiii -
discussed in this order and as commented upon by various non-
public utilities, in the Open Access Final Rule we are including
a reciprocity provision in public utility open access tariffs
under which all those who elect to take service under the open
access tariff (including non-public utilities) will have to offer
reciprocal service including an information network, unless they
are granted a waiver of the reciprocity provision in the tariff.
8/ Consequently, we have increased the estimate of number of
respondents in this rulemaking to reflect the additional burden
on those non-public utilities that seek service under open access
tariffs. However, this is offset by our current expectation that
there will be far fewer OASIS sites than we originally
anticipated in the RIN NOPR. The How Group estimates there will
be between 20-35 OASIS sites nationwide. 9/ Using the higher
number, the burden of running each OASIS will be shared, on
average, by four respondents. This is reflected in the burden
hour and cost estimates.
Our burden hour and cost estimates include the information
gathering requirements imposed on public utilities that do not
develop their own OASIS. Additionally, we have refined our
8/ As explained in the Open Access Final Rule, non-public
utilities that do not want to meet the reciprocity condition
may choose not to take service under an open access tariff.
In that circumstance, the public utility may, if it chooses,
voluntarily provide transmission service on a unilateral
basis to the non-public utility.
9/ How Group comments at 19.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xiv -
- xiv -
estimate of the annual public reporting burden to account for
revisions that this final rule makes to the RIN NOPR.
Estimated Annual Burden:
Data No. of No. of Hours per Total annual
Collection Respondents Responses Response hours
Reporting 140 1 1879 263,060
Recordkeeping 140 1 418 58,520
Total Annual Hours for Collection
(Reporting + Recordkeeping, (if appropriate)) = 321,580
Data collection costs: The Commission projects the average annualized cost
per respondent to be the following:
Annualized Capital/Startup Costs $ 47,500
Annualized Costs (Operations & $ 142,250
Maintenance)
Total Annualized Costs $ 189,750
Internal Review
The Commission has reviewed the collection of information
required by this final rule and has determined that the
collection of information is necessary and conforms to the
Commission's plan, as described in this final rule, for the
collection, efficient management, and use of the required
information. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its
internal review, that there is specific, objective support for
the information burden estimate set forth above. 10/
10/ See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xv -
- xv -
Persons wishing to comment on the collections of information
required by this final rule should direct their comments to the
Desk Officer FERC, Office of Management and Budget, Room
3019NEOB, Washington, D.C. 20503, phone 202-395-3087, facsimile:
202-395-7285 or via the Internet at hillier__t@a1.eop.gov.
Comments must be filed with the Office of Management and Budget
within 60 days of publication of this document in the Federal
Register. A copy of any comments filed with the Office of
Management and Budget also should be sent to the following
address at the Commission: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Information Services Division, Room 41-17, 888 First Street,
N.E., Washington, DC. 20426. For further information, contact
Michael Miller, 202-208-1415.
III. DISCUSSION
A. BACKGROUND
This proceeding began with the issuance of our proposed Open
Access rule (Open Access NOPR) 11/ and a notice of technical
conference to consider whether a RIN (now an OASIS) or some other
option would be the best means to ensure that potential customers
of transmission services could obtain access to transmission
11/ See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities and
Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and
Transmitting Utilities, Notice and Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 60 FR 17662 (April 7, 1995), FERC
Stats. & Regs. 32,514 (March 29, 1995).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xvi -
- xvi -
service on a non-discriminatory basis. 12/ The notice of
technical conference was followed by procedures and input
(described in the RIN NOPR) that led to the issuance of the RIN
NOPR.
Open access non-discriminatory transmission service requires
that information about the transmission system must be made
available to all transmission customers at the same time. This
means that public utilities must make available to others the
same transmission information that is available to their own
employees and that is pertinent to decisions they make involving
the sale or purchase of electricity. The RIN NOPR suggested
requirements representing the first steps towards accomplishing
these objectives.
The RIN NOPR addressed four main issues: the types of
information that need to be posted on an OASIS; technical issues
concerning the development and implementation of an OASIS; the
development of a basic OASIS in Phase I and the development of a
fully functional OASIS in Phase II; and proposed standards of
conduct to prevent employees of a public utility (or any of its
affiliates) engaged in marketing functions from obtaining
preferential access to OASIS-related information.
The Commission's consideration of the first two of these
issues relied heavily on the efforts of two industry-led working
12/ Real-Time Information Networks, Notice of Technical
Conference and Request for Comments, 60 FR 17726 (April 7,
1995).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xvii -
- xvii -
groups that presented recommendations to the Commission. 13/
Additionally, the RIN NOPR invited commenters to address specific
questions on various issues and invited comments generally on the
entire proposal.
As discussed in the RIN NOPR, the handling of various types
of information that might be posted on an OASIS depends on
substantive determinations being made in the Commission's Open
Access rulemaking proceeding. 14/ For this reason, the RIN
NOPR attempted to identify the issues that might be affected by
decisions that would be made in the Open Access rulemaking and
invited comment on the mechanics of implementing whatever
13/ The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) acted
as a facilitator for an industry-led independent working
group, representing diverse interests, to help participants
reach consensus, and to help them prepare a report to the
Commission on what information should be posted on a RIN
(the "What Group"). The Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) facilitated a similar working group (the "How Group")
that sought consensus on how to implement a system that
would accomplish these objectives. Both groups submitted
reports to the Commission describing their progress in
reaching consensus on their respective issues. As explained
in the RIN NOPR, after determining that the working groups
had balanced representation from diverse interests and had
operated in an open, inclusive manner, the Commission used
the working groups' recommendations as the starting point
for developing the RIN NOPR.
A fuller description of the working groups' composition and
activities is contained in the RIN NOPR and in the reports
that those groups submitted to the Commission for its review
(attached to the RIN NOPR as Appendices "A" and "B" and made
publicly available at the Commission's offices and through
the Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS)).
14/ For example, the information about ancillary services that
must be posted on an OASIS depends on what ancillary
services a public utility must provide. Likewise, the
information about discounts that must be posted on an OASIS
depends on whether discounting is allowed.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xviii -
- xviii -
determinations ultimately would be reached in the Open Access
rulemaking, without attempting to prejudge the merits of the
underlying legal and policy issues.
Additionally, the RIN NOPR included (as Appendix "C") a set
of upload and download templates for comment to ensure that all
data definitions are the same and that the information presented
on the OASIS will be uniform and clearly understood.
The Commission's RIN NOPR, issued on December 13, 1995,
invited comments on enumerated questions, along with general
comments. Comments were filed by over 100 commenters. These
comments were generally favorable to the OASIS concept, although
numerous disagreements remained as to the details. The comments
will be discussed below on an issue-by-issue basis. 15/
In the RIN NOPR, we invited the two industry-led working
groups to continue their efforts to reach consensus and to report
to us on their progress. On March 7, 1996, the How Group
submitted a report giving proposed revisions to their original
report. 16/ The How Group also submitted a report on April
15/ In the discussion that follows, our references to comments
are illustrative and not inclusive. While we have intended
to identify all of the major issues raised by the
commenters, we have not attempted to identify all commenters
in instances where more than one comment makes the same
point.
16/ The participants in the How Group submitted a report
entitled Consensus Comments of the Wholesale Electric Power
Industry on behalf of the "industry management process
(interim) on how to implement transmission services
information networks."
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xix -
- xix -
15, 1996 making recommendations on additional issues on which the
group had reached consensus.
B. SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION
The Commission is issuing this final rule with the Open
Access Final Rule to implement the legal and policy
determinations being made in the Open Access Final Rule. 17/
This final rule contains three basic provisions that, taken
together, will ensure that transmission customers have access to
transmission information enabling them to obtain open access
transmission service on a non-discriminatory basis. This final
rule is necessary, therefore, to meet the legal requirement,
discussed in the Open Access Final Rule, that the Commission
remedy undue discrimination in interstate transmission services
by public utilities.
The first provision establishes standards of conduct. These
standards are designed to ensure that a public utility's
employees (or any of its affiliates' employees) engaged in
transmission system operations function independently of the
public utility's employees (or of any of its affiliates'
employees) who are engaged in wholesale purchases and sales of
electric energy in interstate commerce. Such separation is vital
17/ For example, a number of smaller public utilities and non-
public utilities have argued that they should be exempted
from the OASIS requirements. The Open Access Final Rule
provides that public utilities may seek waivers of some or
all of the requirements of the Open Access rules. This
would include the OASIS requirement. Similarly, the Open
Access Final Rule provides that non-public utilities may
seek waivers of the tariff reciprocity provision as applied
to them.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xx -
- xx -
if we are to ensure that the utility does not use its access to
information about transmission to unfairly benefit its own or its
affiliates' sales. Entities subject to these rules are to
achieve compliance with the standards of conduct by November 1,
1996.
The second provision sets out basic rules requiring that
jurisdictional utilities that own or control transmission systems
set up an OASIS. Under these rules, the utilities are required
to provide certain types of information on that electronic
information system as to the status of their transmission systems
and are required to do so in a uniform manner. With these
requirements, we are opening up the "black box" of utility
transmission system information. When in place, the OASIS will
allow transmission customers to determine the availability of
transmission capacity and will help ensure that public utilities
do not use their ownership, operation, or control of transmission
to deny access unfairly. Entities subject to this rule are to
have a basic OASIS, meeting the requirements of this final rule,
in operation by November 1, 1996.
The third component involves the various standards and
protocols referenced in the regulations that are necessary to
ensure that the OASIS system presents information in a consistent
and uniform manner. As proposed in the RIN NOPR, this final rule
references a publication entitled OASIS Standards and
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxi -
- xxi -
Communication Protocols. 18/ This publication contains the
above-mentioned standards and communication protocols. The
publication details the Phase I requirements for technical issues
related to the implementation and use of an OASIS (i.e., a
compilation of OASIS standards and communication protocols).
Because of their level of detail, the standards and protocols
referenced in the regulations will be contained in the Standards
and Protocols document and will not be set out in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
In developing the standards and protocols, we have been
greatly assisted by the industry. However, more work needs to be
done before the necessary standards and protocols are complete.
For this we will again look to the industry and its working
groups. The Commission believes a standard or uniform set of
protocols is essential. The industry is best situated not only
to develop the necessary standards but to develop them where
possible with a consensus. Consequently, we are asking the How
Group to provide us with additional recommendations on those
technical issues remaining to be resolved. After receiving this
report, we will hold a technical conference. In the meantime, to
enable utilities to begin the process of implementing their
OASIS, we will publish the standards and protocols that have been
developed to date.
18/ This title differs slightly from the title we suggested for
this document in the RIN NOPR. We are making this change to
reflect more accurately the contents of the document as it
has evolved.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxii -
- xxii -
We must also provide for the contingency that, over time,
the standards and protocols may need to be revised. To this end,
NERC, in its comments, proposed to continue the industry-based
process for developing OASIS requirements begun by the two
industry working groups. NERC argued that the Commission should
abandon its intention to approve standards developed by industry-
wide consensus and to make decisions in those areas where
consensus is not achieved. Instead, NERC argued that the
Commission should authorize an industry group, facilitated by
NERC and EPRI, to set and enforce detailed standards under broad
policy guidelines fixed by the Commission.
As we have needed the contributions of the industry to
develop the standards and protocols, we will continue to need
that assistance in the future to develop a consensus wherever
possible. We need to strike a balance between standardization to
make OASIS work and encouraging innovation. To this end we
encourage all industry participants to continue seeking consensus
and reporting proposals to the Commission for our consideration.
We welcome the continued work of all industry participants on
revising and improving standards and establishing appropriate
methods for recommending standards in the future. We will
continue to give careful consideration to all consensus
recommendations presented by the industry group(s), provided that
they continue to invite balanced participation in an open
process.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxiii -
- xxiii -
However, we reject entirely the notion that the Commission
need not approve the Standards and Protocols and that these
matters can be left to the industry for implementation and self-
policing. Although we continue to seek industry consensus, the
Commission must reserve final decisions to itself. We cannot
turn over the process of approving and enforcing OASIS
requirements to the industry. The Commission does not believe
that resolution of the outstanding issues or future changes will
occur more quickly without Commission oversight. 19/Nor do we
believe that merely by announcing broad policy guidelines we
would be creating a mechanism that would be sufficient to allow
the Commission to revise regulations quickly. Accordingly, we
will not abdicate our responsibility to decide these issues
ourselves; nor shall we delegate responsibility for making these
decisions to anyone else.
With respect to the as yet unresolved technical issues, we
invite the How Group to report to us on or before May 28, 1996 on
these issues (and to attach any comments it has received from any
interested person with opposing views). Prior to issuing a
revised Standards and Protocols document, we will hold a
technical conference on these issues on June 17, 1996. This
short time frame is necessary if the OASIS is to be properly
operational by November 1, 1996.
19/ To the contrary, our experience with the natural gas
pipeline industry persuades us that an expedited schedule is
more likely with active Commission oversight than otherwise.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxiv -
- xxiv -
The Commission recognizes that the standards and protocols
necessarily will evolve over time. The Commission is committed
to a process for reviewing and, if necessary, revising and
improving the Standards and Protocols on a regular basis after
implementation. We are sensitive to the fact that business
practices and technology will continue to change under open
access and that a mechanism to make changes to the regulations
and to the accompanying standards and protocols on an expedited
basis may be needed. It would be premature at this time,
however, to determine the appropriate mechanism for making such
changes, because the method could vary depending on the type of
change contemplated. In filing its report, we ask that the How
Group advise us on this issue. We will welcome discussions and
comments on mechanisms for revising the standards and protocols
on an ongoing basis at the June 17, 1996 technical conference.
In the sections that follow, we discuss, section-by-section,
the regulations we are adopting with this final rule; how the
costs of implementing the requirements of these regulations are
to be recovered; and the details of implementation.
C. SECTION 37.1 -- APPLICABILITY
This section is unchanged substantively from what we
proposed in the RIN NOPR. As proposed previously, the rules in
Part 37 apply to any public utility that owns or controls
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxv -
- xxv -
facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce. 20/
In proposing these regulations, we stated that issues
relating to potential gaps in providing comparable open access to
wholesale transmission services or to transmission information
that may arise because the requirements do not apply to non-
public utilities would be addressed in the Open Access rulemaking
proceeding. We also invited comment on whether the Commission
should extend OASIS requirements to non-public utilities that own
or control facilities used for the transmission of electric
energy in interstate commerce (Question 45) and on whether the
reciprocity condition of the proposed Open Access rule dictates
that a non-public utility should have an OASIS (Question 46).
Comments
The responses to Question 45 split along industry lines.
Generally, public utilities subject to OASIS rules advocated that
the Commission should impose OASIS requirements on non-public
utilities. They argued that applying OASIS requirements to non-
public utilities would promote competition and a "level playing
field." These commenters argue that all companies should pay the
costs of developing and operating an OASIS and should be required
to divulge information to their competitors on it.
20/ We are, however, modifying this provision to clarify that it
is intended to include public utilities that "operate"
facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce. We are also clarifying that these
regulations apply to transactions performed under the pro
forma tariff required in Part 35 of the Commission's
regulations.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxvi -
- xxvi -
Along these lines, Allegheny argued that, in order to
provide a level playing field between public utilities and their
competitors, the proposed standards of conduct should be expanded
to include personnel of any entity that trades on an OASIS.
Allegheny suggested, therefore, that the standards of conduct be
rewritten to be applicable to non-public utilities through a
requirement that they sign confidentiality agreements as a
condition of obtaining access to OASIS.
Those favoring applying OASIS rules to non-public utilities
argued that a significant portion of the wholesale transmission
market is owned by non-public utilities (ConEd estimates that
non-public utilities, excluding cooperatives, control about 25
percent of the circuit miles of transmission lines nationwide).
They argued that, without information about these lines, accurate
calculations of available transmission capability cannot be made.
However, those advocating that the Commission should assert
jurisdiction over non-public utilities were divided between those
who maintained that the Commission has authority to do so
directly under 311 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) 21/ and
those who maintained that the Commission does not have such
authority. The latter group suggested that the Commission's
21/ 16 U.S.C. 825j. Section 311 authorizes the Commission to
obtain information (and conduct appropriate investigations)
about, among other matters, the transmission of electric
energy throughout the United States, regardless of whether
such transmission is otherwise subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction, and to report to Congress the results of any
investigations it carries out under the authority of this
provision.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxvii -
- xxvii -
authority is not clearcut and, to avoid needless delay and
litigation, the Commission should rely on the reciprocity
condition in the pro forma tariffs to extend OASIS requirements
to non-public utilities. 22/ ConEd argued that we should
state that compliance with OASIS requirements is required by both
311 and reciprocity.
The larger non-public utilities argued that, while the
Commission lacks authority to impose OASIS rules under 311 of
the FPA, they nevertheless will voluntarily comply with the rules
because this would be in their own best interest. By contrast, a
number of small non-public utilities argued that they should be
exempt from OASIS rules, particularly the standards of conduct,
for the same reasons that smaller public utilities argued that
they should be exempted from the requirements of the Open Access
Final Rule. The smaller non-public utilities stressed that they
do not "control" many of their transmission lines and that many
of their lines lack commercial interest. They recommended the
development of a joint or regional OASIS that would make
participation in an OASIS easier and argued that, as to smaller
non-public utilities, the rules requiring a separation of
functions are unduly burdensome and their scant benefits would be
outweighed by their costs to consumers.
NRECA argued that the availability of transmission service
under 211 of the FPA is sufficient to prevent abuses. By
22/ See discussion of Question 46, infra.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxviii -
- xxviii -
contrast, Com Ed argued that Commission orders in 211
proceedings come too late to prevent abuses.
In Question 46 of the RIN NOPR, we asked whether, based on
reciprocity, we should require non-public utilities to develop or
participate in an OASIS. 23/ The responses to this question
generally are split along the same lines as the responses to
Question 45, with non-public utilities pointing out that most
would participate voluntarily in an OASIS because it would be in
their best interest to do so.
APPA asserted that voluntary participation would suffice to
accomplish the Commission's goals and seeks assurance that
compliance with OASIS requirements by non-public utilities would
be deemed by the Commission to satisfy the reciprocity condition
in the pro forma tariffs. APPA also asserted that participation
in a regional OASIS would make compliance easier for non-public
utilities and would help them deal better with operational issues
such as parallel flows. At the same time, NE Public Power
District argued that, although it is willing to participate in an
OASIS voluntarily, the Commission lacks authority to compel
publicly-owned non-public utilities to comply with OASIS
regulations.
In contrast, a number of public utilities maintained that
non-public utilities cannot provide comparable open-access non-
discriminatory service unless they comply with the same OASIS
23/ The discussion of questions 45 and 46 by commenters often
overlapped.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxix -
- xxix -
rules as do public utilities. PJM argued that, although public
utilities and non-public utilities differ in their ownership,
this does not provide a rational basis to exclude non-public
utilities from participation in an OASIS. Carolina P&L argued
that the same concerns that motivated the Commission to propose
the standards of conduct dictate that the rules should apply
equally to non-public utilities.
Others argued that, if non-public utilities need not comply
with the same OASIS rules applicable to public utilities, the
non-public utilities would have the benefit of an uneven playing
field that would give them a competitive advantage. Along these
lines, EGA argued that, in pursuing a competitive wholesale
market, the Commission should apply OASIS rules equally to all
entities that own wholesale transmission facilities. Mid-
American stressed the need for reciprocity by pointing out (as
others did in response to Question 45) that a significant portion
of wholesale transmission facilities nationwide, including some
in pivotal areas, are owned by non-public utilities. VEPCO urged
that any entity that owns transmission facilities, is affiliated
with an entity that owns transmission facilities, controls
transmission facilities through a lease or contract, or signs a
contract for transmission services, should be required to
establish or participate in an OASIS that is compatible with the
industry standards established by the Commission in the final
rule in this proceeding as a condition of being eligible to use a
Transmission Provider's OASIS.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxx -
- xxx -
OK Com stated that it would support the Commission's
assertion of jurisdiction over non-public utilities, provided
that the Commission makes a finding that the non-participation of
a transmission owning entity in an OASIS would have a substantial
detrimental impact on potential customers attaining open-access
non-discriminatory service throughout the Nation. Com Ed argued
that the Commission needs to ensure that non-public utilities do
not circumvent the rule by making purchases and sales through
intermediaries.
Larger non-public utilities, such as Public Generating Pool,
suggested that the participation of larger non-public utilities
is much more important, in terms of promoting competition in the
wholesale market, than is participation by smaller non-public
utilities, whose systems are predominantly small distribution
systems that are not essential to the larger regional power
market. Public Generating Pool proposed that small non-public
utilities should be able to seek an exemption and that regional
transmission groups should decide whether it is necessary for a
small non-public utility to participate in the regional OASIS.
Public Generating Pool also suggested that, if the Commission
prefers, decisions as to who is required to implement an OASIS
could be based on objective factors, such as market share or
concentration. Other non-public utilities, such as Seattle and
Tallahassee, stress the need for flexibility (in providing
sufficient time for compliance and in allowing deviations from
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxi -
- xxxi -
the rule) in any requirement that non-public utilities make
changes to their system.
Discussion
After reviewing these comments we have concluded that we
will not directly assert jurisdiction over non-public utilities
under 311 of the FPA to ensure compliance with OASIS
requirements. We will, instead, rely on the reciprocity
provision of the pro forma tariff that requires a non-public
utility to offer comparable transmission service to the
Transmission Provider as a condition of obtaining open access
service. If a non-public utility chooses to take open access
service, and therefore is subject to the tariff reciprocity
condition, it will need to meet the OASIS requirements in new
Part 37, unless the Commission grants a waiver of this condition.
Although, as pointed out by ConEd, non-public utilities control a
significant percentage of the circuit miles of transmission lines
nationwide, and fully accurate calculations of available capacity
on public utilities' lines cannot be made without information
about these lines, we believe reciprocity provides a sufficient
incentive for non-public utilities to meet the OASIS requirements
imposed on public utilities.
We note that in our Open Access Final Rule we have concluded
that certain of the requirements we are imposing on public
utilities may not be appropriate for small utilities. This
conclusion applies equally to the treatment of small public
utilities and small non-public utilities. Accordingly, we have
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxii -
- xxxii -
established a mechanism in the Open Access proceeding that allows
small public utilities and small non-public utilities to seek
waivers based on the same criteria. 24/
D. SECTION 37.2 -- PURPOSE
Section 37.2 sets out the fundamental purpose of this part
-- to ensure that all potential customers of open access
transmission service have access to the information that will
enable them to obtain transmission service on a non-
discriminatory basis. Comments in response to the RIN NOPR did
not take issue with the proposed language of 37.2 and we are
adopting this provision largely without change.
We wish to clarify, however, that while the OASIS
requirements imposed by this final rule establish a mechanism by
which Transmission Customers may reserve transmission capacity,
they do not require the replacement of existing systems for
scheduling transmission service and conducting transmission
system operations at this time. We believe that it may be
appropriate to include energy scheduling as part of the OASIS
requirements developed for Phase II. In the meantime, if we
conclude that an existing system is operated in an unduly
discriminatory manner, we will pursue changes to such a system in
a separate proceeding.
E. SECTION 37.3 -- DEFINITIONS
24/ Open Access Final Rule at section IV.K.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxiii -
- xxxiii -
This section defines six terms used throughout this Part --
"Transmission Provider", "Transmission Customer", "Responsible
Party", "Resellers", "Wholesale Merchant Function", and
"Affiliate". The comments in response to the RIN NOPR did not
take issue with the proposed definitions. 25/ Consequently,
this final rule adopts these definitions largely without change.
To prevent confusion, the definition of Transmission Customer has
been revised to include potential customers, i.e., those who can
execute service agreements or can receive services as well as
those who actually do so. And, we have modified the definition
of "Affiliate" to more closely track provisions of the FPA and
the Public Utility Holding Company Act.
F. SECTION 37.4 -- STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
This section sets out the standards of conduct necessary to
ensure that Transmission Providers do not use their unique access
to information unfairly to favor their own merchant functions, or
those of their affiliates, in selling electric energy in
interstate commerce. Although preserving the substance of what
was proposed, the final rule has been reorganized.
25/ MidAmerican Energy suggested, however, that a definition for
"Transmission System Operator" be added. We will not do so
because we do not use this term anywhere in the OASIS
regulations. MidAmerican's purpose in making this
suggestion may have been to exclude the posting on the OASIS
of transactions involving the use of transmission for
purchases made for native load (this issue was also brought
up by CCEM, EGA, MidAmerican, NYPP, and NIEP). We address
the issue of native load purchases in the Open Access Final
Rule.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxiv -
- xxxiv -
Paragraph (a) sets out the general rules that require the
separation of transmission and merchant functions and that
recognize in emergency circumstances system operators may take
whatever steps are necessary to keep the system in operation.
Paragraph (b) sets out the specific rules governing employee
conduct under five headings covering prohibited practices,
transfers of employees, access to information, disclosure, and
conduct in implementing tariffs. These provisions correspond to
elements of paragraph (a), as well as paragraphs (b) through (h)
and (j) of the standards proposed in the RIN NOPR.
Paragraph (c) requires that there be written procedures
implementing the standards of conduct and that these must be kept
in a public place and filed with the Commission. Paragraph (c)
corresponds to paragraph (k) of the standards proposed in the RIN
NOPR.
In the RIN NOPR, the Commission proposed standards of
conduct for public utilities patterned after those promulgated
for natural gas pipelines. 26/ The proposed standards of
conduct would require Transmission Providers to separate their
wholesale merchant functions (i.e., wholesale purchases or
wholesale sales of electric energy in interstate commerce) from
their wholesale transmission system operations and reliability
functions. Employees performing wholesale merchant functions
26/ In the RIN NOPR, the proposed standards of conduct were set
out in 37.6. See RIN NOPR text at section III.E (60 FR at
66196) and the proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.6 (60 FR
at 66199). We are renumbering this provision as 37.4 in
this final rule.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxv -
- xxxv -
would be required to obtain information on wholesale transmission
services only through an OASIS, on the same basis available to
all other OASIS users. The standards of conduct were intended to
prevent employees of the Transmission Provider that perform
wholesale merchant functions or employees of any affiliate from
having preferential access to any relevant information about the
Transmission Provider's wholesale transmission availability and
costs, or uses or possible uses of the Transmission Provider's
transmission system by non-affiliates. 27/
We accompanied this proposal with two questions that asked
whether the proposed standards of conduct should be modified and
whether they sufficiently addressed functional unbundling
(Questions 41 and 42). We also asked whether our proposal might
interfere with system reliability (see Question 43).
The responses basically fell into three categories. 28/
27/ Because the Open Access Final Rule pro forma tariff may
include certain retail transmission customers, this final
rule's OASIS information requirements will apply to
applicable retail as well as wholesale services and
information.
28/ Among the over 100 comments filed, only Dayton P&L, among
public utilities, questioned the Commission's underlying
authority to mandate control room unbundling. Dayton P&L's
short conclusory statements in this proceeding were not
accompanied by even a cursory explanation of its reasoning
or by any legal analysis or supporting citations.
Although Dayton P&L offered no support for its position in
this proceeding, it did (along with other parties) devote
extensive discussion to the more general issue of the
Commission's authority to order open access transmission in
its initial comments in the Open Access rulemaking
proceeding. We reject Dayton P&L's unsubstantiated
conclusion, urged in this proceeding, that we lack authority
(continued...)
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxvi -
- xxxvi -
First, a number of smaller public utilities argued that they
should be granted waivers (or be deemed exempt) from the proposed
standards of conduct because these standards would compel them to
hire additional staff not justified by their small market share
or by the small revenues they derive from providing wholesale
transmission services. These comments suggested that the
standards should not apply to public utilities that lack
operational control over the facilities used for wholesale
transmission service, or to public utilities that do not exceed
given thresholds for market share, percent of revenues, or total
revenues from wholesale transmission services.
Second, a number of large utilities basically were satisfied
with the proposed rules and offered specific suggestions for
revisions. Third, commenters raised the issue of whether to
require the separation of generation and transmission functions.
29/ We discuss these three categories below.
28/(...continued)
to order control room unbundling for the same reasons that
we reject their more general and more extensive arguments on
the Commission's authority in the Open Access Final Rule.
See Open Access Final Rule at section IV.B.
29/ A number of comments raised the issue of whether the OASIS
regulations would promote ISOs (independent system
operators) and whether participation in an ISO would exempt
an entity from compliance with OASIS requirements. In this
regard, a number of comments suggested that the proposed
standards of conduct will result in the widespread transfer
of transmission functions to the control of ISOs and
predicted that the need for the standards of conduct will
diminish as ISOs become more prevalent. In this context, IN
Com supported the formation of ISOs, because this would
reduce the need for state commissions to monitor functional
unbundling and would help in resolving jurisdictional
(continued...)
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxvii -
- xxxvii -
1. Requests by Smaller Public
Utilities for Waivers from the
Standards of Conduct
Turning first to the arguments of smaller public utilities
that they should be exempt from the standards of conduct, we note
that this issue also arose in the Commission's Open Access
rulemaking proceeding. As described in the Open Access Final
Rule, we will publish a list of jurisdictional public utilities
that must comply with these rules. At the same time, we
establish a mechanism that allows small public utilities to seek
a waiver. In appropriate circumstances, the Commission would
waive some or all of the Open Access requirements, subject to
future reconsideration as warranted by circumstances. 30/
A related issue involves the concerns of small non-public
utilities about their obligation under the reciprocity condition.
We have decided in the Open Access rulemaking proceeding that we
would use these same criteria to decide whether a small non-
public utility should be granted a waiver from all or part of the
reciprocity condition contained in public utility open access
tariffs. Such waivers could be sought of the requirements to
29/(...continued)
questions.
The concept of ISOs is addressed in the Open Access Final
Rule. As to the prediction that the rise in the number of
ISOs will make the standards of conduct unnecessary, or
should offer a basis for an exemption from the standards of
conduct, we would characterize the potential of ISOs
somewhat differently. In our view, a properly constituted
ISO could be a mechanism, not for an exemption, but as a
means to comply with the standards of conduct.
30/ Open Access Final Rule at section IV.K.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxviii -
- xxxviii -
have open access tariffs, provide ancillary services, establish
an OASIS, or separate functions.
A full explanation of the waiver mechanism is contained in
the Open Access Final Rule. 31/ We will use these same
standards to determine whether small public utilities have
complied with the OASIS requirements and to determine whether
small non-public utilities have met their contractual obligation
to comply with OASIS requirements as a condition of service under
open access tariff reciprocity provisions.
2. Suggested Revisions to the
Standards of Conduct and Timing
For the most part, we have adopted the standards of conduct
as proposed, making technical and conforming revisions. In a few
instances, in response to comments, we have made substantive
changes. These changes, and the suggestions that led us to make
them, are discussed below, along with some suggestions that we
rejected.
1. As proposed, the regulations would prohibit preferential
access to the system control room and "other facilities of the
public utility" that differs from the access available to other
potential transmission users. AEP suggested that it is not clear
whether this was intended to restrict access to all other
facilities or is meant to restrict access to other similar
facilities, (i.e., those facilities that, like the control room,
are involved in transmission operations and reliability
31/ Id.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxix -
- xxxix -
functions). Consistent with this latter interpretation, AEP
suggested that the restriction be modified to apply to the system
control room and "similar facilities used for transmission
operations or reliability functions." We agree with AEP's
interpretation of the scope of this restriction and adopt the
suggested revision in section 37.4(b)(1)(ii) of the final rule.
2. Section 37.4(c) of the proposed standards of conduct would
prohibit contacts (off OASIS) between employees of the public
utility engaged in transmission system operations and employees
of the public utility engaged in wholesale marketing functions,
and employees of any affiliate no matter how employed. AEP, Com
Ed, and Ohio Edison argued that this provision is too broad and
would exclude contacts between transmission system operators and
employees of affiliates engaged in various activities, many of
which are unrelated to a public utility's merchant functions.
For example, an energy services subsidiary might be engaged in
building a power plant in a foreign country. AEP argued that
there would be no reason to deny employees engaged in such an
activity access to utility personnel involved in transmission or
reliability functions. Com Ed suggested that this provision
should be modified to prevent contacts between system operators
and employees engaged in wholesale marketing functions,
regardless of whether those marketing employees are engaged in
those activities on behalf of either the utility or its
affiliates. Thus, under this argument, contacts between system
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xl -
- xl -
operators and affiliate employees not engaged in wholesale
marketing functions would not be prohibited.
We agree with AEP, Com Ed, and Ohio Edison that our proposed
standards of conduct were overly broad because they prohibited
contacts between system operators and affiliate employees engaged
in functions completely unrelated to a public utility's wholesale
power and energy marketing functions. We will revise the
proposed standards of conduct accordingly.
AEP also argued that employees of the affiliate may be
involved in the wholesale merchant function, but not in the
utility's market area. For example, an employee of an affiliate
might be involved in a different geographic area, far from the
system's transmission grid. AEP argued that there would be no
need to isolate such activities from the utility's transmission
operations. To cover such situations, AEP suggested that the
language be modified to read "employees of any affiliate of the
public utility, to the extent that such employees are engaged in
wholesale merchant functions in the utility's market area."
We reject AEP's suggestion. Although public utilities may
still have the ability to exert market dominance in particular
markets, they also will now have the ability to participate in
transactions across the nation. We fully expect -- and our
experience with the WSPP demonstrates -- that in the move to a
competitive wholesale bulk power market, public utilities will
have extensive market areas in which to make offers. Thus, there
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xli -
- xli -
is no reason to limit the scope of the standards of conduct as
recommended by AEP.
We also have clarified section 37.4(b)(3)(i) to explain that
employees engaged in merchant trading functions must not have
preferential access to any information about the Transmission
Provider's transmission system that is not available to all users
of an OASIS. However, the standards of conduct do not foreclose
customers, including merchant employees, from obtaining
information about the status of their particular contracted for
transaction from Transmission Provider employees engaged in
system operation and reliability functions. The information
provided in status reports must present the same types of
information, in the same level of detail, to any customer
presenting a similar request. The standards do, however,
preclude merchant employees from obtaining preferential access to
information about the Transmission Provider's system (not
directly linked to their particular transaction) from any
nonpublic source as well as market information acquired from
nonaffiliated customers or potential nonaffiliated customers or
developed by the Transmission Provider in its role as a
Transmission Provider (except to the limited extent that this
information is required to be posted on the OASIS). 32/
3. APPA argued that the rules should prohibit preferential
treatment of wholesale purchases or sales by any utility. APPA
interpreted the originally proposed language to mean that
32/ See 37.4(b)(4)(iii); see text accompanying n. 33, infra.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xlii -
- xlii -
preferential treatment would be permitted, as long as the
preference would not be extended to the public utility itself or
an affiliate. APPA and Com Ed argued that preferential treatment
of any wholesale customer over the interests of any other
wholesale customer must not be allowed. Com Ed adds that absent
clarification, relationships of reciprocal favoritism could
develop in the industry, to the detriment of all other customers.
We find this contingency is possible. While the standards
of conduct set guidelines for Transmission Providers and their
affiliates in handling their wholesale merchant functions; public
utilities are also governed by section 205(b) of the Federal
Power Act. Section 205(b) prohibits public utilities from
granting any undue preference or advantage to any person or
subjecting any person to any undue prejudice or disadvantage with
respect to any transmission or sale subject to the jurisdiction
of the Commission. This provision remains in full force and
effect and prohibits preferential treatment in transactions
regardless of whether those transactions are specifically
addressed in the standards of conduct.
4. In section 37.6(i) of the RIN NOPR we proposed that public
utilities offer customers discounts comparable to those that the
public utility offers to its own power customers or those of an
affiliate. AEP suggested that this limitation on allowable
discounts be expressly limited to discounts on wholesale
transmission services. We agree and are revising this provision
accordingly. Discounts for jurisdictional power sales are not
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xliii -
- xliii -
governed by this final rule but by section 205(b) of the FPA and
related precedent on power sales.
5. Allegheny suggested that the Commission should find that
there will no longer be a presumption of discriminatory dealing
between utility affiliates in generation and transmission
services when network owners comply with the standards of
conduct. Allegheny has presented no basis for making such a
finding and we decline to do so.
6. Com Ed, Duke, and NEPOOL suggested that the proposed
standards should not be interpreted to prevent employees of the
utility engaged in wholesale marketing functions from obtaining
information about their competitors from non-affiliated third
party sources such as the trade press. Com Ed also suggested
that the utility should be allowed freedom to give out
information about its transmission functions off OASIS (e.g., in
briefings at public meetings) as long as the utility's wholesale
marketing employees do not obtain preferential access to those
forums. Ohio Edison suggested that the proposed standards of
conduct should be revised to preclude only "substantive access"
to the system control room. Ohio Edison argued that access for
matters unrelated to transmission matters, such as training
programs, should be permitted.
We have two points we wish to make regarding these related
suggestions. First, we clarify that the rules do not prohibit
access to information contemporaneously available without
restriction to other members of the general public. (See section
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xliv -
- xliv -
37.4(b)(1)(ii) dealing with access to information). Second,
these rules are intended to be interpreted consistent with common
sense, prudence, and caution.
Our standards of conduct are intended to prevent
preferential access to information related to transmission prices
and availability by employees of the public utility or any
affiliate engaged in wholesale merchant functions. Preferential
access means that information is obtained from those with access
to information about the public utility's transmission system
operations that is not equally available to other customers. It
is obvious, at least to us, that this does not bar wholesale
merchant employees from reading the trade press or from sitting
in the audience of a publicly-announced and available lecture
delivered by the public utility's transmission operator or a
third party in an open forum. However, the onus is on the public
utilities subject to these standards to conduct their affairs in
compliance with these rules, and they should exercise care and
prudence in so doing.
We decline, therefore, to specify in these regulations
whether, for example, a "public meeting" must be preceded by
advance notice, to whom that notice must be provided, and what
that notice would need to spell out. We do not believe that it
would be appropriate to burden our rules with this kind of
minutiae in a misplaced effort to anticipate every possible
contingency. Such regulatory overkill is unwarranted and
counterproductive. Moreover, those subject to the regulations
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xlv -
- xlv -
may, like other members of the public, call the Enforcement Task
Force Hotline to obtain informal advice on implementing the
standards of conduct.
7. VEPCO suggested that, rather than prohibiting contacts
between system operators and employees of the public utility and
any affiliates engaged in wholesale merchant functions, the
Commission could reach the same result by allowing system
operators to disclose, through informal communications,
information about the status of the transmission system, provided
that they then post this information on OASIS.
We find this suggestion untenable. First, such disclosures
would necessarily be posted after-the-fact, and thus the
information would not be conveyed to all potential customers at
the same time. Second, such a provision would be very difficult
to enforce. Third, the same information could just as easily be
divulged on the OASIS to all customers, rather than "reported" on
the OASIS after-the-fact.
8. Com Ed suggested that the reference in subsections (a) and
(d) of the proposed standards to "reliability functions" should
be clarified to apply only to transmission functions and not to
generation functions. We disagree. As discussed below, system
operations and reliability functions include both transmission
and generation functions.
9. Con Ed suggested that the standards of conduct should
include a disclaimer that utilities will not be liable for the
reliability or accuracy of data posted on the OASIS as an
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xlvi -
- xlvi -
accommodation to third parties. We agree that the responsibility
for assuring the reliability and accuracy of data supplied by
third parties rests with those third parties and not with the
public utility that posts this information on the OASIS as an
accommodation. We do not, however, view this as a standard of
conduct issue. Instead, we address this point in our discussion
of what information is to be posted under 37.6(g).
10. Ohio Edison suggested that posting the names of personnel
transferring between departments would make these employees
targets for recruitment by competitors. Notwithstanding this
concern, we believe that this information must be posted on the
OASIS to make possible "gaming of the system" through spurious
revolving door tactics more visible.
11. Ohio Edison also suggested that the phrase in subsection (b)
of the proposed standards . . . must rely upon the same
information relied upon by the public utility s wholesale
transmission customers should be modified to read . . . must
have available only the same information available to the public
utility s wholesale transmission customers. Ohio Edison argued
that the Transmission Provider has no way of knowing what
information its customers relied upon and that it should not be
held to an undefinable subjective standard. We agree.
Accordingly, we adopt Ohio Edison's suggestion in section
37.4(b)(3)(i) of the final rule and omit the phrase "rely upon."
12. Ohio Edison also suggested that if its suggestion (in the
previous item) is adopted, then the language in section 37.4(b)
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xlvii -
- xlvii -
beginning with the language in parenthesis becomes redundant and
should be deleted. We disagree and will retain that language in
section 37.4(b)(3)(ii) of the final rule. We believe the
language adds necessary clarification.
13. Montana Power suggested that, if off-OASIS communications
between the utility's system operators and wholesale marketing
personnel are prohibited, these kinds of communications should
also be prohibited between system operators and all transmission
users. Montana Power would prefer, however, that these
communications be permissible. Likewise, Duke suggested that we
change the regulations so that if an employee of an unrelated
third party calls the transmission-related employees, for
example, to better understand the public utility's transmission
system, such communications should be permitted to be conducted
off the OASIS. Duke maintains that the free flow of information
should not be discouraged so long as functional unbundling is
implemented and affiliate abuse is avoided. NEPOOL suggested
that the rules dictating the Transmission Provider's release of
information should apply to all Transmission Customers, not just
to the Transmission Provider's employees, as affiliates, engaged
in wholesale merchant functions.
Our proposed standards of conduct were designed, and our
final standards are being implemented, to prevent Transmission
Providers from giving themselves an undue preference over their
customers through the exchange of "insider" information between
the company's system operators and employees of the public
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xlviii -
- xlviii -
utility, or any affiliate, engaged in wholesale marketing
functions. Thus, the rules place restrictions on preferential
communications from the system operators to only those merchant
employees. The rules were not designed to prevent system
operators from having communications with third parties. We do
not generally see this as an area that needs regulatory
oversight. As discussed above, we have revised the regulations
to ensure no discriminatory treatment and we remind public
utilities subject to these regulations that section 205(b) of the
FPA prohibits undue discrimination. This should suffice.
14. NUSCO suggested that the Commission should distinguish: (1)
the functional separation of generation marketing related to
operation of the transmission system and administration of
transmission tariffs (which are relatively short-term
activities); from (2) the coordination of marketing with the
system planning function (a long-term activity encompassing both
generation and transmission). Similarly, the FL Com is concerned
that the standards of conduct might impede system reliability,
and argued that marketers and system operators should be able to
confer concerning the company's long-term planning activities
that require knowledge about the company's generation and
transmission systems. NEPOOL expresses similar concerns.
By contrast, Com Ed suggested that the proposed standards of
conduct will not impair planning because, like a one-way street,
they allow information to be conveyed from employees engaged in
merchant functions to system operators, while at the same time
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xlix -
- xlix -
prohibiting information to be conveyed in the opposite direction.
Com Ed submitted that the inter-relationship between the areas of
strategic planning, resource planning and long-range transmission
planning require the flow of information to transmission
personnel. Future acquisitions of capacity may constitute a
resource taken into account in planning and may have an impact on
the transmission system that needs to be accounted for by
transmission planners. Thus, Com Ed argued that there should be
no restriction on the flow of information about future purchases
or sales from the merchant function to the transmission function,
although restrictions on the flow of information to the merchant
function should be adopted as proposed.
We agree with Com Ed that, as we proposed in the RIN NOPR,
the flow of information, through the OASIS, from employees
engaged in wholesale merchant functions to system operators
should remain permissible, to allow proper system planning, while
at the same time restricting information being conveyed off the
OASIS from system operators to utility and affiliate employees
engaged in wholesale merchant functions, to prevent preferential
access to transmission information. Consequently, we reject the
proposals offered by NUSCO, FL Com, and NEPOOL in this regard.
15. Omaha PPD argued that information regarding the scheduling
of power transfers, economic dispatch, and economic conditions
have nothing to do with the information that is needed regarding
the availability of transmission capability. Omaha PPD
suggested, therefore, that any information relating to economic
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - l -
- l -
operation or the commercial state of a utility be removed from
the standards of conduct. By contrast, NUCOR suggested that,
since economic dispatch is premised on real-time marginal
production cost data and generating unit economics, the
comparability standard mandates that utilities provide the same
generation cost data to other market participants. Similarly,
NUCOR argued that, because economic dispatch also is dependent on
the economics of off-system purchases and sales, data pertaining
to such purchases and sales also must be made generally
available.
Except for postings for certain ancillary services, the RIN
NOPR did not propose the posting on an OASIS of data on
generation and we are not persuaded, at this juncture, to do
more. Our decision is based on a balancing of the need for the
information, the claimed commercial sensitivity of the
information, and the desire to avoid, to the extent possible,
having public utilities reporting generation data that their
competitors may not be required to report.
16. VEPCO suggested that the regulations should prohibit system
operators from disclosing information to wholesale marketing
employees or other customers about the ancillary services offered
by third parties because they are not permitted to disclose the
same information about their companies' own products. VEPCO
further suggested that the prohibition against discussing the
companies' own products should be removed.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - li -
- li -
We find these suggestions inconsistent with the kinds of
safeguards we are trying to provide through these standards of
conduct. In any event, as discussed below in our discussion of
items to be posted on the OASIS, we are requiring that this kind
of information be posted on the OASIS, and thus companies will be
able to get their message out that these services are available.
17. Duke suggested that the proposed subsection dealing with the
impartial application of tariff provisions should be revised to
make clear it is the customer (and not the employees) who is to
be treated on a fair and impartial basis. We agree and the final
rule in section 37.4(b)(5)(ii) adopts this suggestion.
18. VEPCO suggested that the rules requiring a separation of
functions should be suspended if additional employees trained in
system operations (but normally assigned to marketing functions)
should be needed to assist in handling system operation functions
during emergencies affecting system reliability. VEPCO also
suggested that the Commission should allow transmission and
generation operators to engage in emergency energy transactions
and hourly non-firm energy transactions.
It is not the purpose of these rules to compromise
reliability. In emergency circumstances affecting system
reliability, system operators may take whatever steps are
necessary to keep the system in operation. Consequently, we are
adding a provision to the standards of conduct that specifically
grants system operators the authority to take whatever steps are
necessary to maintain system reliability during an emergency,
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lii -
- lii -
notwithstanding that this could otherwise constitute a violation
of the standards of conduct. Transmission Providers will be
required to report to the Commission and on the OASIS each
emergency that resulted in any deviation from the standards of
conduct, within 24 hours of such deviation. If we see a pattern
of activities that suggested that "emergencies" are not
authentic, we will take strong action against the offending
public utilities.
Because we are adding a provision that allows actions to be
taken in response to emergencies, we are deleting the phrase "to
the maximum extent practicable" that had appeared in section
37.6(a) of the standards of conduct proposed in the RIN NOPR.
19. Continental Power Exchange argued that, just as merchant
traders should be prohibited from access to the control center,
system operators should be prohibited from access to the trading
floor. United Illuminating agreed that separation of functions
needs to apply to separation of transmission and customer supply
functions. Continental Power Exchange also suggested that
discounts should be offered unilaterally to all customers without
prior notice and without two-way negotiation. Continental Power
Exchange further suggested that short-term transactions should be
deemed approved upon request, unless the utility specifically
notifies the customer that the transaction will be denied.
Continental Power Exchange argued that this would streamline the
proposed procedures and make OASIS transactions faster and more
manageable.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - liii -
- liii -
We will not, at this time, adopt Continental Power
Exchange's suggestion to create an absolute prohibition against
system operators having access to the trading floor because we
are concerned about information divulged by system operators and
not about information acquired by them. However, any non-public
contacts between system operators and merchant traders creates
the risk that there will be improper communications between these
employees and the burden is on Transmission Providers subject to
the standards of conduct to devise procedures that will prevent
improper contacts. We expect, therefore, that the Transmission
Providers themselves will devise procedures that will either
prohibit or, at a minimum, severely restrict access to the
trading floor by system operators.
As to Continental Power Exchange's other suggestions, we
will not adopt these suggestions at this time, but may come back
to them as the process evolves and the feasibility of back and
forth negotiations is tested by experience.
20. SoCal Edison and Tucson Power suggested that, while the
proposed 60-day deadline for filing procedures to implement the
standards is adequate, the Commission needs to be flexible on
implementing other changes, such as reconfiguring and relocating
control rooms and other facilities, and training and recruiting
new employees.
Although we originally proposed to require compliance with
the standards of conduct starting 60 days from the publication of
this final rule, on further consideration we have decided to put
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - liv -
- liv -
off the requirement that they be implemented until the
implementation of OASIS, that is by November 1, 1996. As a
practical matter, the standards of conduct cannot be implemented
apart from the electronic communication systems of a functioning
OASIS; the two work together. In addition, the extra time will
permit utilities the opportunity to fully implement the
requirements of the standards of conduct. Although the result
will be a window of time during which open access transmission
tariffs will not be supported by standards of conduct (or OASIS),
we must recognize that the changes we are mandating for the
industry cannot be implemented overnight; a transition period is
required.
21. Finally, after a review of the comments, we have added an
additional provision to the standards of conduct (section
37.4(b)(5)(vi) of the final rule) dealing with the posting of any
additional market information developed by a Transmission
Provider in its role as a Transmission Provider and shared with
employees of its, or an affiliate's, merchant function.
We have expressed concern in a number of recent orders about
the possibility of the dissemination of market information by a
public utility with market-based rate authority. 33/ To guard
against the possibility of affiliate abuse, we have required such
public utilities to commit in their codes of conduct with
affiliates to share market information only if they make the same
33/ See, e.g., Illinova Power Marketing, Inc., 74 FERC 61,313,
slip op. at 4-6 (1996); USGen Power Services, L.P., 73 FERC
61,302 at 61,845 (1995).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lv -
- lv -
information publicly available to non-affiliates at the same
time. We have not dictated the means by which public utilities
are to make this information simultaneously available to all.
This same concern for the unequal distribution of market
information, in a manner that may benefit select recipients with
commercial or competitive information that is not equally
available to others, leads us, after a review of the comments, to
extend the standards of conduct to cover any market information
gathered by Transmission Providers in the course of responding to
transmission or ancillary service inquiries.
Our concern, based in part on our experience with
implementing and monitoring electronic bulletin boards developed
for use by the natural gas pipeline industry, is that there
remains the incentive for a Transmission Provider to share with
its own merchant employees, or those of an affiliate, any
information it has developed (not limited to transmission system
information) in responding to requests made over the OASIS. This
is particularly a concern with respect to market information
developed in the course of denying a request for transmission
service.
While we have developed procedures dealing with the
obligations of Transmission Providers in responding to requests
for service, we believe that these procedures, alone, may not be
sufficient to eliminate the possibility of an unfair competitive
advantage to employees of the Transmission Provider (or an
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lvi -
- lvi -
affiliate) engaged in merchant functions, by virtue of access to
market information not shared with others.
Accordingly, we will add to the standards of conduct a
provision that precludes a Transmission Provider from sharing
market information acquired from nonaffiliated Transmission
Customers or potential nonaffiliated Transmission Customers or
developed in the course of responding to requests for
transmission or ancillary service. In this manner, we can be
better assured that employees of the Transmission Provider or an
affiliate engaged in merchant operations do not develop a
competitive advantage by virtue of operation of an OASIS. The
Transmission Provider may only reveal information about
transmission requests as provided in the provisions of this rule
(section 37.6 (e)) dealing, generally, with responses to
transmission and ancillary service requests and, specifically,
with transaction confidentiality (except to the limited extent
that this information is required to be posted on the OASIS).
3. Whether to Require the Separation
of Generation and Transmission
Functions
In the RIN NOPR we proposed standards of conduct that would
require Transmission Providers and their affiliates to separate
system operation and reliability functions from wholesale
merchant functions. Both transmission and generation functions
are included within system operation and reliability functions.
The RIN NOPR, notwithstanding Questions 42 and 43, did not
propose that these functions (transmission and generation) be
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lvii -
- lvii -
separated. Nor did we propose that Transmission Providers divest
their ownership of generation assets.
We received numerous comments in response to our questions
42 and 43 that asked whether, if the Commission would go beyond
unbundling transmission and generation merchant functions to
order the unbundling of generation and transmission operations,
this would necessitate revision of the proposed standards of
conduct and whether this would adversely affect reliability.
34/ After reviewing the comments, we conclude that we should
require -- with these final rules -- only the unbundling of the
transmission operations and wholesale marketing functions of
public utilities and their affiliates, as proposed in the RIN
NOPR. We do not extend these rules to require the unbundling of
transmission and generation control functions or to mandate the
divestiture by Transmission Providers of their generation assets.
We will require the functional unbundling of transmission
operations and wholesale marketing functions because we are
persuaded that this will prevent abuses based on preferential
access to information and other discriminatory behavior, without
compromising system reliability. The standards of conduct are
34/ The commenters nearly universally focused their
presentations on why the Commission should not order an
unbundling of generation and transmission operations, rather
than addressing the precise topic we set out. In any event,
the issue is now moot, as we have decided not to order
Transmission Providers to separate their generation and
transmission operations at this time. If, however, with
experience we discover that the steps we are ordering here
are not adequate to remedy undue discrimination, we can
revisit this issue.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lviii -
- lviii -
designed to accomplish this: (a) by requiring that transmission-
related information be made available to all customers (including
employees of the public utility, and any affiliate, engaged in
merchant functions) through OASIS postings available to all
customers at the same time and on an equal basis; and (b) by
prohibiting the employees of Transmission Providers and any
affiliates from disclosing (or obtaining) non-public
transmission-related information, through communications not
posted on the OASIS.
G. SECTION 37.5 -- OBLIGATIONS OF TRANSMISSION PROVIDERS
This section of the final rule adopts, without substantive
change, the provisions proposed as section 37.4 (Standardization
of Data Sets and Communication Protocols) and section 37.5
(Obligations of Transmission Providers) in the RIN NOPR. The
final rule requires, in paragraph (a), that a Transmission
Provider must provide for the operation of an OASIS either
individually or jointly with other Transmission Providers and it
must do so in accord with the requirements of Part 37. Paragraph
(b)(1) requires that the OASIS must give access to relevant
standardized information pertaining to the status of the
transmission system as well as to the types and prices of
services. Finally, in paragraph (b)(2), the rule requires that
the OASIS must be operated in compliance with the protocols set
out in the publication, OASIS Standards and Communication
Protocols.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lix -
- lix -
In the RIN NOPR, we explained that each Transmission
Provider would be responsible for compliance, regardless of
whether it establishes its own OASIS or participates in a joint
OASIS. 35/ The final rule does not change this. In a related
provision, we proposed, in 37.1, that Part 37 would apply to
any public utility that owns, operates, or controls facilities
used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate
commerce. However, as noted by many commenters, it is quite
probable that individual public utilities may turn the operation
of their transmission system and information system over to an
ISO or other joint or regional entity. (This has been provided
for in the definition of the term "Responsible Party"). This
raises the issue of the Commission's jurisdiction over such
entities.
Under section 201(e) of the FPA, a "public utility" means,
any person who owns or operates facilities subject to
the jurisdiction of the Commission under this Part
(other than facilities subject to such jurisdiction
solely by reason of section 210, 211, or 212). [36/]
To the extent that anyone is given control and decision making
authority over the transmission operations of a public utility's
transmission facilities, it clearly would "operate" public
facilities, within the meaning of section 201(e), and therefore
35/ NRECA commented that the Commission should ensure that
expenses by a joint OASIS are subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction and audit authority. We agree. We will treat
this as a normal ratemaking expense issue and will allocate
such costs on a case-by-case basis when such expenses are
presented to us for our review.
36/ 16 U.S.C. 824.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lx -
- lx -
would be subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. 37/ To the
extent that a public utility turns over its operations to an ISO
or any other joint entity to satisfy the Open Access and OASIS
requirements, the ISO or any other entity would fall within the
definition of a "public utility" under 201 of the FPA and thus
would be subject to the OASIS regulations of Part 37.
H. SECTION 37.6 -- INFORMATION TO BE POSTED ON AN OASIS
In the RIN NOPR, we proposed, in sections 37.7 through
37.14, rules governing: (1) the information that must be posted
on an OASIS; (2) the procedures for the posting and updating of
information on the OASIS; (3) the posting of discounts; (4)
procedures for Transmission Providers to respond to customer
requests for transmission service; (5) procedures for
communicating denials of requests for service and curtailments;
and (6) the posting of information about scheduling and affiliate
transactions. These provisions have been consolidated and are
now covered in 37.6 of the regulations adopted by this final
rule.
As discussed in more detail below, section 37.6 has eight
paragraphs. Paragraph (a) lists the objectives of an OASIS.
Paragraph (b) lists what must be posted for public transmission
capability -- that is, available transmission capability (ATC)
and total transmission capability (TTC) -- as well as how and
37/ See, e.g., Bechtel Power Corporation, order granting
declaratory order and disclaiming jurisdiction, 60 FERC
61,156 at 61,572 (1992) (on control issue), and FPC v.
Florida Power & Light Company, 404 U.S. 453 (1972) (on
defining jurisdictional facilities).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxi -
- lxi -
when this information is to be updated. Paragraph (c) sets out
the requirements for posting transmission service products,
including resold capacity as well as their prices. Paragraph (d)
provides the same for offerings of ancillary services. Paragraph
(e) sets out the requirements for posting transmission service
requests and responses including service denials and curtailment
or interruption of transmission. Paragraph (f) provides
requirements for posting transmission service schedules.
Paragraph (g) deals with posting other transmission-related
communications. Finally, paragraph (h) sets out the requirements
for auditing information.
Some of the proposed provisions have not been adopted.
These include requirements concerning an application procedure
for requesting transmission service ( 37.9(b)(5) of the proposed
regulations); requirements imposed on the reseller to notify the
Transmission Provider of certain information ( 37.9(c)(3) of the
proposed regulations); and the steps that must be followed by the
Transmission Provider and Requester in their negotiations (
37.12 of the proposed regulations). These did not prescribe
information that must be posted; rather, they were concerned with
how parties should conduct business in an open access
environment. These matters are considered in the Open Access
Final Rule.
1. OASIS Objectives ( 37.6(a))
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxii -
- lxii -
The Commission proposed five objectives for the OASIS in the
RIN NOPR. 38/ Few comments were received on these objectives;
none were substantive. Thus, we adopt these objectives without
substantive revision in the final rule.
2. Posting Transmission Capability ( 37.6(b))
a. ATC for Network Integration Service
The RIN NOPR discussed requiring the posting of available
transmission capability for network service. As we acknowledged
in the RIN NOPR, 39/ before-the-fact measurement of the
availability of network transmission service is difficult.
Nonetheless, it is important to give potential network customers
under the Commission's pro forma tariff (as discussed in the Open
Access Final Rule) 40/ an easy-to-understand indicator of
service availability. To this end, the Commission requested
comments on how best to post the availability of network
transmission service on the OASIS (Question 3).
NERC reiterated the statement in the What Group report that
it does not seem possible to post the availability of Network
Integration Transmission Service on an OASIS. No other
commenter disagreed.
NERC went on to describe some of the challenges involved
with calculating available transmission capability (ATC) for
38/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66188) and the
proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.7 (60 FR 66200).
39/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66188).
40/ See Open Access Final Rule at sections IV.G and IV.H.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxiii -
- lxiii -
network integration service. Network service is a complex, long-
term relationship between a requester and provider that must be
investigated in detail because it involves the specification of
multiple points of receipt or delivery or both. Because of the
long-term nature of network service, the planning process
involves a complex interrelationship of future loads and
resources, with an impact on the network that is extremely
location dependent. A major difficulty in estimating network ATC
is the lack of specific locations for which to calculate an
impact on the network. Each network service request would be
unique, with different sets of integrated loads and generating
stations affecting the network, including its constrained paths,
differently.
The Commission also asked if there were any alternative
service that is more suitable to measurement than the current
version of network service. Some commenters said that it might
be possible to devise a concept which supports better measurement
of network-like service availability, but devising and
implementing such a new concept within the proposed initial
implementation time line for OASIS is not feasible. The
Commission is not, at this time, persuaded to require the posting
of ATC for network service.
b. Minimizing the Reporting of ATC
( 37.6(b)(1) and (3))
In the RIN NOPR, the Commission requested comments on ways
to minimize the burden of ATC calculations, while ensuring that
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxiv -
- lxiv -
wholesale Transmission Customers have the information they need
(Question 5).
Commenters suggested a number of ways to minimize the
reporting of ATC, including less frequent updates, developing
standardized methods for calculating ATC, and encouraging
regional efforts. Most of the comments discussed ways to limit
the number of paths for which ATC has to be posted.
The What Group proposed that ATC be posted only for paths as
"business needs" arise. This proposal was intended to limit the
number of paths for which ATC must be posted. A "business need"
was defined, in part, by a Transmission Customer requesting
information about a path. A number of commenters supported the
proposal to limit paths based on "business need." 41/
The Commission suggested in the RIN NOPR a different
approach to the problem. Calculating ATC and updating frequency
could be based, instead, on the level of activity and constraints
on a given path. This approach was supported by a number of
commenters. 42/ A number of commenters wanted to leave to the
Transmission Provider the decision of which paths to post ATC.
43/
41/ See, e.g., Arizona, ConEd, NEPOOL, NE Public Power District,
NERC and Western Group comments.
42/ See Basin EC, Duke, NE Public Power District, Tallahassee,
Union Electric, and VEPCO comments. Only Arizona said it
was a bad idea because it would be too subjective and
confusing.
43/ See Central Illinois Public Service, Detroit Edison, Omaha
PPD, PSNM, Texas Utilities, Union Electric, and VEPCO
comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxv -
- lxv -
Detroit Edison, Oklahoma G&E and PSNM suggested that
customers could also identify paths, along with a process for
deleting them. NEPOOL and Detroit Edison stated that they will
post ATC for all control area interfaces and any internal
constraints. The Western Group had a similar proposal.
NE Public Power District, NERC and NSP commented that ATCs
should be posted only for constrained paths. PJM and WP&L
proposed that, for unconstrained paths, static numbers or limits
could be used and would be updated infrequently. VEPCO suggested
that paths be coded by the quality of the ATC calculation used
and that high quality effort be used only when ATC is less than
25 percent of the total transmission capability. ConEd suggested
that posting could be sorted by frequency of update so that
busier paths would be at the top of the list.
Dayton P&L suggested mandatory information on ATC be limited
to: (1) identification of the interface; (2) firm and non-firm
ATC (hourly for the current day, daily for the next seven days,
weekly for the next four weeks, monthly for the next 12 months);
and (3) price for each service.
MAPP summarized the issue well when it stated "[t]he burden
of ATC calculations will be determined by the number of paths for
which ATC is being calculated and posted, the accuracy needed and
the frequency of required update."
The proposed regulations have been modified to implement the
alternative approach suggested by the Commission in the RIN NOPR.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxvi -
- lxvi -
The regulations in 37.6(b)(1) define the paths for which ATC
and TTC must be posted. These are called "posted paths."
A transmission path becomes a "posted path" in one of three
ways. First, ATC and TTC must be posted for any path between two
control areas. Second, posting is required for any path for
which transmission service has been denied, curtailed or subject
to interruption during any hour or part of an hour for a total of
24 hours in the last 12 months. In counting up to 24,
curtailment for any part of an hour counts for a whole hour.
Finally, Transmission Customers can request that ATC and TTC be
posted for any other transmission path. Customer requested
postings may be dropped if no customer has taken service on the
path in the last 180 days.
The regulations in 37.6(b)(3) define two classes of posted
paths based on usage: "unconstrained" and "constrained". A
constrained posted path is one for which ATC has been less than
or equal to 25 percent of TTC for at least one of the last 168
hours or is calculated to be 25 percent or less of its associated
posted TTC during the next 7 days. An unconstrained posted path
is any posted path that is not a constrained posted path.
For constrained posted paths, ATC and TTC for firm and non-
firm service would have to be posted for the next 168 hours and,
thereafter, to the end of a 30-day period. In addition, ATC and
TTC for firm and non-firm service must be posted for the current
month and the next twelve months. However, this monthly posting
for ATC and TTC for non-firm service is required only if
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxvii -
- lxvii -
requested by a customer. If the Transmission Provider charges
separately for on-peak and off-peak periods in its tariff, ATC
and TTC will be posted daily for each period. A posting for a
constrained posted path must be updated when transmission service
on the path is reserved or service ends or when the path's TTC
changes by more than 10 percent.
For an unconstrained posted path, ATC and TTC for firm
transmission service and non-firm transmission service would be
required to be posted for the next seven days and for the current
month and the next twelve months. 44/ If the Transmission
Provider charges separately for on-peak and off-peak periods in
its tariff, ATC and TTC will be posted for the current day and
the next six days following for each period. Postings for an
unconstrained posted path must be updated when the ATC changes by
more than 20 percent of the path's TTC.
We will not require ATC and TTC to be posted on the OASIS
more than thirteen months in advance, with the following
exception. If planning and specific requested transmission
studies have been done, seasonal capability shall be posted for
the year following the current year and for each year following
to the end of the planning horizon, but not to exceed 10 years.
c. Methodology for Calculating ATC and TTC
( 37.6(b)(2))
44/ The terms "firm point-to-point transmission service" and
"non-firm point-to-point transmission service" are defined
in the definition section of the pro forma tariff for point-
to-point service.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxviii -
- lxviii -
In the RIN NOPR, the Commission discussed the requirements
for calculating ATC and TTC. 45/ Recognizing that formal
methods do not currently exist to calculate ATC and TTC, the
Commission requested comment on how to develop a consistent,
industry-wide method of calculation (Question 4).
Most commenters recommended that the Commission defer to
NERC regarding the development of a consistent, industry-wide
method of calculation. NERC, in turn, recommended that the
Commission give deference to NERC s ongoing, industry-wide
effort. NERC's Transmission Transfer Capability Task Force (TTC
Task Force), with an expanded roster to include representation
from all segments of the electric industry, was formed to develop
uniform definitions for determining ATC and related terms.
Because the TTC Task Force will not be finished with its
assignment until May 1996, NERC recommended that the OASIS final
rule not contain specific definitions of terms such as ATC, but
instead be limited to a general framework within which the same
information can be made available to all transmission users at
the same time.
The Commission encourages industry efforts to develop
consistent methods for calculating ATC and TTC. Consequently,
the final rule follows the proposed regulations in requiring that
ATC and TTC be calculated based on a methodology described in the
Transmission Provider's tariff and that it be "based on current
45/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66188) and the
proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.9(b)(2) (60 FR 66200).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxix -
- lxix -
industry practices, standards and criteria." (Section
37.6(b)(2)(i)). 46/
As provided in the pro forma tariff, Transmission Providers
may themselves purchase only transmission capability that is
posted as available. This requirement should create an adequate
incentive for them to calculate ATC and TTC as accurately and as
uniformly as possible.
d. Accommodating Flow-Based Pricing
In the RIN NOPR, the Commission asked for comment on what
requirements would have to be changed if the electric power
industry moves to regional pricing, flow-based pricing, or other
pricing models that depart from the "contract path" approach
(Question 2). 47/
Many commenters expressed the need for OASIS flexibility to
support both contract path and actual flow models. 48/ Com Ed
stated that, so long as the OASIS is flexible, appropriate
postings involving ATC, price, and related information will
develop for use with tariffs using flow-based pricing.
The Commission concludes that the proposed regulations were
general enough to accommodate flow-based pricing methods.
46/ The pro forma tariff in the Open Access Final Rule provides
that Transmission Providers must develop a method for
calculating ATC and TTC and must include a description of
this methodology in their tariffs.
47/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66186).
48/ See, e.g., Consumers Power, Basin EC, ERCOT, NEPOOL, PA Com,
How Group, NIEP, NYPP, NERC, Ohio Com, OK Com, Oklahoma G&E,
PSNM, Texas Utilities, Western Group, PacifiCorp, and PJM
comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxx -
- lxx -
Therefore, we have provided no special provision regarding flow-
based pricing in the final rule. Any OASIS-related issue that
arises when flow-based proposals are made can be dealt with at
that time. We cannot accurately foresee what issues may arise
concerning flow-based pricing because this is an evolving area.
e. Actual Flow Data
The RIN NOPR proposed the posting of actual path flow data
to better inform Transmission Customers about the true network
impacts of taking service on a contract path basis. 49/ The
Commission asked whether there are any difficulties, technical or
otherwise, associated with posting actual path flows (Question
20).
In response, commenters stated that such posting is
technically difficult, but possible. However, they question the
value and usefulness of such postings. 50/ Commenters stated
that information on actual path flows is voluminous, excessive,
and burdensome to post.
Allegheny stated that actual flow information could be
commercially sensitive depending on the degree to which a
generator's output can be determined from it. Oklahoma G&E
stated that actual flows are meaningless unless accompanied by
voltage, line thermal limits, and line first contingency
49/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66191).
50/ See, e.g., Allegheny, Arizona, Central Illinois Public
Service, Carolina P&L, Florida Power Corp, Montana Power,
NERC, Omaha PPD, Texas Utilities, Union Electric, and VEPCO
comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxi -
- lxxi -
incremental transfer capability. NERC commented that actual path
flow postings would be irrelevant or even misleading to the
Transmission Customer and should not be required. NERC added,
however, that the Commission should not preclude such postings
either. The How Group pointed out that, from a technical
standpoint, posting actual path flows significantly increases the
level of detail in information about transmission service. APPA
answered that some regions already have the capability to post
actual flows, but functional separation diminished the need for
the Commission to require the posting of actual flows.
The final rule does not require the posting of actual path
flows. As long as ATC and TTC are calculated to reflect network
conditions, including parallel path constraints, actual flow data
need not be posted. The Commission may reassess this issue after
reviewing the proposals of the TTC Task Force on methods for
calculating ATC and TTC expected in May 1996.
f. Providing Supporting Information
( 37.6(b)(2)(ii))
In the RIN NOPR, we proposed that public utilities must post
all data used in calculating the ATC and TTC and make such data
publicly available. 51/ The Commission received a number of
comments on this proposal.
51/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66190) and the
proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.9(b)(6) (60 FR 66200).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxii -
- lxxii -
A majority of commenters stated that supporting data should
not be available on the OASIS. 52/ About half of the
commenters argued that the data should be available off-line.
53/ Others suggested that procedures and software used in
calculating ATC and TTC must be posted. 54/ NYPP suggested
that a bibliography of supporting information should be
maintained on the OASIS.
Having this information available is essential for building
and maintaining trust in the information posted on the OASIS.
Transmission Providers generally seem willing to provide this
information after-the-fact and off-line. Since this information
would be used only after-the-fact and can be voluminous, the
final regulations require that ATC and TTC supporting information
be made available by the Responsible Party within one week of
posting, on request, in their original electronic format and at
the cost of reproducing the materials. A requirement specifying
how long the information must be retained also has been added.
g. Long-Term Studies ( 37.6(b)(2)(iii))
The RIN NOPR proposed that any planning or specifically
requested studies of the transmission network performed by the
52/ See, e.g., Allegheny, Central Illinois Public Service,
Continental Power Exchange, EPRI, Florida Power Corp, MAPP,
NERC, NE Public Power District, NYPP, Ohio Edison, PSNM,
VEPCO, Western Group, and WP&L comments.
53/ See, e.g., Allegheny, ConEd, Detroit Edison, Duke, EPRI,
Idaho, MAPP, NEPOOL, NE Public Power District, Ohio Edison,
PSNM, VEPCO, and Western Group comments.
54/ See, e.g., Duke, EPRI, Idaho, PSNM, Western Group comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxiii -
- lxxiii -
Transmission Provider be posted on a same-time basis. 55/
This would include only those parts of customer-specific
interconnection studies that relate to network impacts.
The majority of commenters responded that transmission
planning studies should not be posted on the OASIS. ConEd and
MAPP suggested an index to be maintained on the OASIS. NEPOOL,
Tallahassee, and Montana Power suggested that summaries should be
maintained on the OASIS.
As with the ATC supporting information, having this
information available is essential for building and maintaining
trust in the ATC and TTC posted on the OASIS. Since this
information would be used only after-the-fact and can be
voluminous, the final regulations require that final transmission
studies be available from the Responsible Party on request in
original electronic format and at the cost of reproducing the
materials. A list of available studies is to be posted on the
OASIS. A requirement specifying how long the studies must be
retained also has been added.
3. Posting Transmission Service Products and Prices
( 37.6(c))
Paragraph 37.6(c) of the regulations adopts several of the
proposed provisions. It requires Transmission Providers to post
prices and a summary of the terms and conditions of transmission
products. In addition, Transmission Providers must provide a
downloadable file of their complete tariffs. Furthermore,
55/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66191) and the
proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.8(c) (60 FR 66200).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxiv -
- lxxiv -
customers who use an OASIS to resell transmission capacity must
submit relevant information about their resale transactions to
the Transmission Provider for posting to the same OASIS as used
by the Transmission Provider in originally offering that
capacity. As proposed in the RIN NOPR, the Transmission Provider
must post this information about resales on the same display
page, using the same tables, as similar capacity being sold by
it. Similarly, the information must be contained in the same
downloadable files as the Transmission Provider's own available
capacity. A customer who does not use an OASIS to arrange a
resale of transmission capacity must, nevertheless, inform the
original Transmission Provider of the transaction within the time
limits prescribed by the "Sale or Assignment of Transmission
Service" section of the pro forma tariff.
The proposed standards of conduct required a Transmission
Provider that offers any discount on behalf of its power
customers or those of an affiliate, to post offers for similar
service containing comparable discounts, at the same time, to all
Transmission Customers.
As to discounts that the Transmission Provider has agreed to
give to any Transmission Customer (affiliated or unaffiliated),
the Commission proposed requiring that these discounts be posted
within 24 hours after the agreement is entered (measured from
when ATC is adjusted in response to the agreement), and that they
remain posted for 30 days. The Commission sought comment on
whether all transmission discounts should be posted on the OASIS,
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxv -
- lxxv -
or only those provided to the Transmission Provider or its
affiliates (Question 14).
Most commenters, including representatives with diverse
interests such as APPA, EEI, Continental Power Exchange, EGA,
EEI, NIEP, and NRECA, argued that discounts must be made
available to all customers. NRECA especially, was concerned
about the potential for selective discounting. The Ohio Com,
clearly concerned about allowing Transmission Providers to
negotiate privately, asked that we clarify how discounting would
work, and EGA raised some practical concerns about how the
Commission's proposal would work. EGA asked whether, when a
discount is offered to an affiliate, discounts must be offered to
others on the same path, all paths, or only paths needed to get
to the buyer to whom the affiliate is selling. This issue is
addressed in the Open Access Final Rule, which concludes that
such discounts must be offered to all customers on all
unconstrained paths.
Several commenters were against discounting, but would
accept discounts if they were made available to all customers.
56/ Several commenters agreed with the proposal to require
posting of discounts offered to affiliates and delaying the
reporting of discounts to others. 57/ However, CCEM wants to
change the 24-hour delay period to 30 days.
56/ See ERCOT, MidAmerican, NUCOR, and Public Generating Pool
comments.
57/ See CCEM, OK Com, and Tallahassee comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxvi -
- lxxvi -
SCE&G and Union Electric would allow discounting but not
post them on the OASIS. Central Hudson would post only affiliate
discounts. SMUD argued that selective discounting is good and
stated that, if public utilities must offer discounts to
everyone, no discounts would be offered to anyone.
The question of whether discounts may be offered is
discussed in the Open Access Final Rule. 58/ If a
Transmission Provider offers a discount for transmission service
to its own power customers or those of an affiliate, it must, at
the same time, post on the OASIS an offer to provide the same
discount to all eligible customers on the same path and on all
unconstrained transmission paths. As to discounts for ancillary
services, if a Transmission Provider offers a rate discount to an
affiliate, or attributes a discounted ancillary service rate to
its own transactions, the Transmission Provider must, at the same
time, post on the OASIS an offer to provide the same discount to
all eligible customers. If a Transmission Provider offers
discounts to non-affiliates, it must offer to do so on a basis
that is not unduly discriminatory. Any discounts under
37.6(c)(3) offered to affiliates or to the Transmission
Provider's own power customers must be posted on the OASIS when
they are offered pursuant to 37.4(b)(5)(v). Discounts offered
to non-affiliates must be posted within 24 hours of when ATC is
adjusted in response to the transaction.
58/ See generally Open Access Final Rule at sections IV.D and
IV.G.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxvii -
- lxxvii -
4. Posting Ancillary Service Offerings
and Prices ( 37.6(d))
Transmission Providers are required to post on the OASIS
information about all ancillary services required by the Open
Access Final Rule to be provided or offered to customers. 59/
A Transmission Provider may, at its discretion, post information
on the OASIS about other interconnected operation services,
offered by itself or third parties, that are not services
required by the Open Access Final Rule to be offered to
customers. However, if a Transmission Provider elects to post
these optional services for any party, including itself, then it
must post on its OASIS, for a reasonable cost based fee, the same
type of information about comparable optional ancillary services
offered by third parties.
In the RIN NOPR, we proposed the posting of price and other
information about ancillary services. 60/ We requested
comment on: (1) the information needed about ancillary services
(Question 12); (2) how often the information should be updated
(Question 13); and (3) where on the information network offers of
ancillary services by entities other than the Transmission
Provider should be placed (Question 9).
While there is near consensus among commenters on the need
to update ancillary services information as it changes, there is
widespread disagreement on what information about ancillary
59/ See generally Open Access Final Rule at section IV.D.
60/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66190).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxviii -
- lxxviii -
services should be posted and where on the OASIS offers by other
entities to provide ancillary services should be placed. Some
commenters request that the Commission allow flexibility because
the information requirement may depend upon the industry
structure that develops in response to the Open Access Final
Rule. NERC asserted that it is impractical to expect the initial
OASIS to be the vehicle for posting information on the
availability and price of all ancillary services.
Ancillary service providers are required to post all
pertinent information about their ancillary service offerings
(e.g., a description of the service being offered, its
availability, and its price) so that Transmission Customers may
compare offers and decide which offer best suits their needs.
Information about ancillary services should be updated as it
changes. Postings by customers and third parties should be on
the same page, and in the same format, as postings of the
Transmission Provider.
5. Posting Transmission Service
Requests and Responses ( 37.6(e))
Section 37.6(e) requires that all requests by customers for
transmission service that the Transmission Provider offers under
the pro forma tariff must be made on the OASIS. The Responsible
Party is required to provide to others on the OASIS the essential
information relating to such requests, with the identity of the
parties masked, if requested. Additionally, the section sets out
the steps that must be followed in processing such requests,
including the posting of curtailments, interruptions, or denials
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxix -
- lxxix -
of service. 61/ The final OASIS regulations require that a
record of transactions not resulting in agreements also be kept
for audit purposes. We now discuss some special issues arising
under this provision and the comments relating to those
provisions.
a. Posting Curtailments and
Interruptions
( 37.6(e)(3))
We proposed requiring that, when a transaction is curtailed,
a Transmission Provider must post the reason that the transaction
was curtailed and the available options, if any, for adjusting
the operation of the Transmission Provider's system to increase
transfer capability in order to accommodate the transaction.
62/ Since scheduling and the curtailment of schedules would
not be done through the information network initially, this
curtailment data would be for information purposes only.
The Commission requested comments on what information about
curtailments should be communicated on an OASIS (Question 7).
Only Union Electric, among the commenters who answered this
question, argued against posting information about curtailments
or recording this information in an audit file. Among those who
supported posting or recording, the differences were in how much
61/ The Open Access Final Rule discusses curtailments at section
IV.G and provides that a company's curtailment policy is to
be described in its tariff.
62/ "Curtailments" are service cutbacks made for system
reliability reasons and are distinguishable from
"interruptions", which are made pursuant to tariff
conditions.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxx -
- lxxx -
information should be provided, where the information should be
placed, and who should have access to the information.
The comments expressed support for a Transmission Provider
setting out in its tariff, or elsewhere, curtailment or
interruption rules or constraint relief protocols. 63/ This
would let a customer know what to expect when there is a
constraint and would allow the Transmission Provider to be held
to a formal set of procedures. Then, when a curtailment occurs,
postings on the OASIS can refer to steps and reasons defined in
the curtailment procedures.
Many commenters agreed that at least some basic information
about curtailments needs to be posted or documented in the audit
file. Several commenters pointed out that there may be some lag
before these postings are placed on the OASIS because control
room personnel may need time to determine and resolve the
problem. 64/ Some commenters believed that these postings
should be made available only to those curtailed. 65/
The proposed regulations addressed curtailments and denials
of service together. In this final rule, denials are
distinguished from curtailments of service. Transmission
Providers are not required to offer options for making capacity
available to those curtailed, but if options are offered, they
63/ See APS, NERC, and NIEP comments.
64/ See Allegheny, Com Ed, CSW, NERC, NRECA, and SCE&G comments.
65/ See, e.g., Allegheny and Central Illinois Public Service
comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxxi -
- lxxxi -
must be offered to curtailed and interrupted customers at the
same time.
As discussed in the Open Access Final Rule, transmission
tariffs must include rules for curtailment and interruption of
service, including clear steps or stages in the process for
relieving constraints, and transmission service agreements must
clearly identify the service's priority relative to concurrent
services. Consistent with these requirements, the final rule
here provides that, when curtailments or interruptions take
place, they must be posted as soon as possible and must include
identification of the service (with the identity of the customer
masked), the reason for the curtailment or interruption, and the
tariff-defined step in the curtailment and interruption process.
In the event that an emergency situation affecting system
reliability delays this posting, the posting must be made as soon
as practicable thereafter along with an explanation for the
delayed posting.
Curtailments and interruptions will be recorded for audit
purposes. This audit data should contain enough information
about the timing of superseding requests and changes in ATC to
document the reason for a curtailment or interruption. The final
rule also provides that customers have the right to request an
explanation of the reason for a curtailment or interruption.
b. Posting Denials of Requests for
Service ( 37.6(e)(2))
In the RIN NOPR, we proposed requiring that, when requests
for service are denied, Transmission Providers must communicate
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxxii -
- lxxxii -
to Transmission Customers through the OASIS: the reason(s) that
the transaction(s) could not be accommodated; and the available
options, if any, for adjusting the operation of the Transmission
Provider's system to increase transfer capability to accommodate
the transaction(s). The Commission requested comments on what
information about denials of requests for service should be
communicated on an OASIS (Question 7).
As with curtailments, only Union Electric out of the
commenters who answered this question opposed posting information
about denials of service on the OASIS or recording this
information in an audit file. Many commenters agreed that at
least some basic information about denials should be posted.
Some commenters believed that these postings should be available
only to those denied service. 66/
Service can be denied for two basic reasons: either (1) the
customer requested more than the posted ATC or (2) after the
request for service was made, conditions changed due to
preexisting requests or unforeseen events reducing capacity.
Denials should be handled as part of the request and response
process. A requester should receive a standardized reason for
denial as part of the response. Denials would not be posted.
Instead, denials must be recorded for audit purposes and
maintained as provided in section 37.7(b). This data should
contain the information about a denial needed to explain the
reason for a denial. Under the final rules, customers have the
66/ See Allegheny and Central Illinois Public Service comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxxiii -
- lxxxiii -
right to request an explanation of the standardized reason for a
denial.
c. Transaction Anonymity
( 37.6(e)(3)(i))
In the RIN NOPR, we proposed that, generally, information
concerning negotiations on transmission requests need not be
posted unless an agreement to provide the transmission is
reached. 67/ This information would be available only after-
the-fact in the audit file. In addition, if an agreement is
reached, the identity of parties to transmission transactions
would be masked until 30 days after the date when the
Transmission Provider's ATC was adjusted in response to the
transaction. (This might be after the date when service begins).
After that date, all transaction data would be made available.
In addition, we proposed that transmission transaction prices be
included in the information in the audit file. Price information
concerning cost-based transmission services would not be
considered commercially sensitive.
The Commission requested comment on what information should
be considered commercially sensitive, the 30-day release period
proposal, and on how and when commercially sensitive information
should be released to concerned parties before the standard
release period and whether affiliated transactions should be
treated differently (Question 24).
67/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66191) and the
proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.14(d) (60 FR 66201).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxxiv -
- lxxxiv -
Several commenters agreed that information about
negotiations that do not reach agreement should not be reported.
68/ No commenter argued for making this information public.
A number of commenters supported the 30-day delay on
providing commercially sensitive information. 69/ Several,
however, thought the information should be provided as soon as
possible. 70/ Others thought it should be provided quarterly.
71/ WP&L proposed a 60-day delay. Dayton P&L said that the
delay should depend on contract length. Union Electric suggested
a delay of 30 days after the transaction begins and not after the
ATC is adjusted.
Commenters split on the question of whether price data are
commercially sensitive. 72/ Commenters listed several items
as commercially sensitive that were proposed to be posted. These
are ATC supporting information, 73/ transmission schedule
68/ See, e.g., Allegheny, Detroit Edison, El Paso, NorAm, and OK
Com comments.
69/ See Allegheny, CCEM, El Paso, Oklahoma G&E, PJM, PSNM, and
Western Group comments.
70/ See APPA, Continental Power Exchange, MidAmerican Energy,
and NIEP comments.
71/ See Arizona, ConEd, and NorAm comments.
72/ EGA, NUCOR, NRECA, Omaha PPD, and PJM supported the
proposition that the data are not commercially sensitive.
Arizona, Central Illinois Public Service, Detroit Edison, OK
Com, PSNM, Seattle, and Western Group argued that the data
are commercially sensitive.
73/ See Carolina P&L and El Paso comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxxv -
- lxxxv -
information, 74/ generation run status, 75/ amount
provided, 76/ terms and conditions, 77/ and duration.
78/
NE Public Power District argued for full disclosure of all
but generator information because, as a public entity, it must
disclose such information. NIEP stated that comparability should
be the ruling principle in information disclosure.
The final rule adopts the NOPR proposal and provides that
the identity of parties to an agreement are confidential during
ongoing negotiations and for 30 days from the time ATC is
adjusted. Although not explicitly required in the new Part 37,
the price of services offered on and agreed to through the OASIS
are not considered commercially sensitive. 79/
6. Posting Facility Status Information
The RIN NOPR discussed the fact that the ATC of some
transmission paths depends on generator run status or megawatt
output, or both, as well as on other system elements. 80/ We
74/ See Central Illinois Public Service and OK Com comments.
75/ See Allegheny, Carolina P&L, CSW, Detroit Edison, EGA, NE
Public Power District, and PJM comments.
76/ See, e.g., Allegheny and WP&L comments.
77/ See Central Illinois Public Service comments.
78/ See Allegheny comments.
79/ We note, in this regard, that 205(c) of the FPA requires
public utilities to have their prices on file with the
Commission and available for public inspection.
80/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66191).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxxvi -
- lxxxvi -
proposed requiring Transmission Providers to post information
about those system elements that have a direct and significant
impact on ATC. Such elements could include generators,
transmission lines, phase shifters, series and shunt capacitors,
static VAR compensators, special protection systems or remedial
action schemes. We, therefore, requested comment on whether it
is sufficient to provide information only about planned outages
and (for both planned and forced outages) return dates for system
elements deemed to have a direct and significant impact on ATC
and whether posting this information would cause any
confidentiality concerns (Question 18). We also requested
comment on how "significant and direct impact" should be defined
(Question 19).
Additionally, we requested comment on whether it would be
sufficient to post the changes to ATC corresponding to the
planned outage or return dates of generators (Question 21); and
whether, if operating guides, nomograms, operating studies, and
similar information were posted, the run status of those
generators with a significant and direct impact on ATC could be
deduced (Question 22).
Comments
A number of commenters stated that the posting of facility
status information should not be a requirement. 81/ These
81/ See Allegheny, Central Illinois Public Service, Com Ed, CSW,
Dayton P&L, Detroit Edison, Duke, Montana Power, NERC, NYPP,
Ohio Edison, PJM, PSNM, Texas Utilities, VEPCO, and WP&L
comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxxvii -
- lxxxvii -
commenters reasoned that the posted ATC and TTC values would
reflect facility status impacts and that posting status
information therefore would be unnecessary and burdensome, and
would render the information network unmanageable. With regard
to generator status and outage information, a number of
respondents argued that generator status and outage-related
information is commercially sensitive and confidential. 82/
They stated that posting generator-related information would give
an unfair advantage to competitors. Some opposing the posting of
generation-related information also added that the Commission's
proposed standards of conduct would make it unnecessary to post
this information because the Transmission Customer's and the
Transmission Provider's wholesale marketing functions would rely
on the same information. 83/ A number of Transmission
Providers believed that facility status data can be archived and
made available for after-the-fact audits. 84/
A second group of commenters believed that facility status
information should be posted on the OASIS. 85/ With regard to
82/ See Allegheny, Arizona, Central Illinois Public Service,
ConEd, Carolina P&L, CSW, Dayton P&L, Detroit Edison,
Florida Power Corp, NEPOOL, NE Public Power District, NERC,
NYPP, Oklahoma G&E, Omaha PPD, PJM, Texas Utilities, Union
Electric, VEPCO, and WP&L comments.
83/ See Central Illinois Public Service, Carolina P&L, and Ohio
Edison comments.
84/ See ConEd, CSW, Florida Power Corp, NYPP, Ohio Edison, and
PSNM comments.
85/ See APPA, CCEM, EGA, NCEMC, NIEP, OK Com, Seattle,
Tallahassee, and United Illuminating comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxxviii -
- lxxxviii -
generator status and outage data, Seattle responded that planned
generator outage data should be updated as it changes and that an
explanation of the impact of typical outage configurations should
be made available to all transmission users in advance. APPA
stated that the run status (on-line or off-line) of any
generating unit should not be kept confidential. APPA argued
that keeping such information confidential, under the guise of
competitive necessity, is an excuse to protect opportunities to
game the market. NCEMC stated that, because the transmission
user needs to be able to do a reliability and risk assessment of
various available power supply sources and transmission paths, it
probably is not sufficient to post ATC changes corresponding to
generation outages.
A third group of commenters suggested that, while generator
status-related information should not be posted, information
about transmission facilities with direct and significant impact
on ATC and TTC could be posted. 86/ There were diverging
views among the commenters as to whether posted ATC or TTC values
would reveal the run status of generators if operating guides,
nomograms, operating studies, and similar information were
posted. A number of commenters responded that ATC and TTC are
affected by many variables and, even though in some cases it may
be possible to deduce the run status of certain generators from
86/ See Arizona, Dayton P&L, MidAmerican, NEPOOL, PJM, and
Western Group comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxxxix -
- lxxxix -
the posted ATC or TTC, these deductions would be uncertain.
87/
NERC responded that it may be possible, over time, to
recognize patterns and supporting data that would indicate which
generator went off-line, but not whether the reason is a planned
outage, forced outage, reserve shutdown, or other reasons. NERC
explained that a run status so deduced would itself be an
estimate and not as commercially sensitive as knowing the reason
for that status. Florida Power Corp and Montana Power responded
that customers will be able to deduce generation-related
information from changes in ATC if guides, nomograms, or studies
are posted and, therefore, such information should not be posted.
By contrast, a number of commenters stated that nomograms,
derating tables, and operating studies can be used to identify
equipment that has a direct and significant impact on ATC and
TTC. 88/ The Western Group responded that, where study
results have been summarized in nomograms, derating tables, and
operating guidelines and procedures, these summary forms should
be made available as information on the OASIS.
A number of respondents answered that it is not necessary to
define "significant and direct impact" because ATC and TTC are
87/ See Arizona, CCEM, Central Illinois Public Service, Com Ed,
ConEd, CSW, Detroit Edison, NEPOOL, NE Public Power
District, VEPCO, and WP&L comments.
88/ See APPA, Arizona, CCEM, Idaho, NEPOOL, Oklahoma Com,
Seattle, and SoCal Edison comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xc -
- xc -
the only quantities that need to be posted. 89/ ConEd stated
that the definition of "significant" should be consistent with
local and regional procedures. Duke and Florida Power Corp
commented that the Commission should work through NERC in
developing appropriate definitions. NYPP, on the other hand,
stated that "significant and direct impact" can be determined
only on a case-by-case basis. Montana Power defined the term as
a reduction of ATC that results in the denial of service.
Continental Power Exchange proposed that any system element
affecting ATC more than 10 percent should be considered
significant. CSW proposed a 50 percent threshold. CSW further
proposed to include those elements that can cause a reduction of
more than 25 percent of the normal flows across an interface.
Discussion
Additional information about the state of the transmission
system will enable Transmission Customers to make better
decisions about the quality of the transmission service they
intend to purchase. However, the development and
implementation of Phase I OASIS, in what is a relatively short
period of time, requires that we limit the posting requirements
of the OASIS to the essentials. We believe that audit data and
information required to be provided about the reasons for
curtailments and interruptions will make it possible to document
unduly discriminatory practices concerning facilities critical to
89/ See Allegheny, Com Ed, Detroit Edison, NERC, NE Public Power
District, Ohio Edison, SCE&G, Texas Utilities, Union
Electric, and VEPCO comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xci -
- xci -
transmission capability. Also, as pointed out by APPA, the
standards of conduct that we put in place with this rule lessen
the urgency of posting additional information concerning
generating unit status and transmission component status.
Consequently, the Commission will not require the posting of
information about the run status of generation and transmission
facilities for a Phase I OASIS. We may reconsider this subject
for Phase II OASIS depending on the Phase I experience.
7. Posting Transmission Service
Schedules Information ( 37.6(f))
The final rule consolidates and renumbers 37.14(b) and (c)
of the RIN NOPR as 37.6(f). This provision requires
information on scheduled transmission service to be recorded by
the entity scheduling the transmission service and requires that
the information be made available for download on the OASIS by
interested parties. It also provides that postings must be made
within one week of the start of the transmission service schedule
agreed upon by the parties. The comments in response to the RIN
NOPR did not take issue with the proposal. Thus, the provision
is adopted without substantial revision.
8. Posting Other Transmission-Related
Communications ( 37.6(g))
Section 37.6(g) basically adopts what we proposed for the
posting of "want ads" and "other communications" in 37.9(f) of
the RIN NOPR. Postings made in this section carry no obligation
to respond on the part of any market participant.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xcii -
- xcii -
This section provides that "other communications related to
transmission services" (such as using the OASIS as a
transmission-related conference space or to provide transmission-
related messaging services between OASIS users) and "want ads"
must be posted by the Responsible Party.
We received comments that urged the Commission to issue a
disclaimer to the effect that, although Transmission Providers
are responsible for posting other transmission-related
communications at the request of third parties, it is the
responsibility of the third parties requesting such postings to
ensure the accuracy of the information to be posted. We agree
that such a disclaimer is appropriate. We provide it in
37.6(g)(2).
In addition, the final rule requires that transfers of
personnel between the transmission and marketing functions are to
be posted on the OASIS ( 37.6(g)(3)). This incorporates the
requirements of the standards of conduct at 37.4(b)(2).
I. SECTION 37.7 -- AUDITING TRANSMISSION SERVICE
INFORMATION
In the RIN NOPR, we proposed procedures that would govern
the availability of records about auditing transmission service
transactions. 90/ The Commission proposed requiring that
historical data on postings, updates, and request/response
communications be recorded for audit purposes, be downloadable
from the OASIS in an appropriate format for 60 days, and be
90/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66191) and the
proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.14 (60 FR 66201).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xciii -
- xciii -
available for download on a rolling basis for three years from
entry on the OASIS. These provisions are now contained in 37.7
of the final rule. However, we have increased the time during
which audit data must be available for download from 60 days to
90 days because this provides greater protection to customers.
ConEd suggested that the Commission should provide assurance
to Transmission Providers that they will not be liable if they
post data under the proposed audit provisions that is considered
confidential by their customers. We do not believe that it would
be appropriate for the Commission to issue this sort of blanket
disclaimer in the absence of any particular facts or controversy.
However, to the extent that a Transmission Provider posts data
because this is required by the Commission's regulations, the
Transmission Provider may, of course, assert this as a defense
against any legal action brought against it based on the
disclosure.
J. STANDARDS AND COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS
In this section, we discuss the major issues raised in
response to our proposed standards and protocols. As proposed,
these are being issued in the separate Standards and Protocols
document that we are issuing together with this final rule. As
already described, the final rule states explicitly that
information is to be posted on the OASIS in conformance with the
specifications of the Standards and Protocols.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xciv -
- xciv -
The most recent How Report (filed on April 15, 1996) shows
great strides toward reaching consensus on a set of implementable
standards. However, it needs to be augmented in two ways.
First, there are some internal inconsistences. For example,
there are data elements that appear in the data dictionary that
do not appear in the templates and vice versa. The data elements
for DUNS numbers that appear in the data dictionary need to be
added to the appropriate templates. Data elements for DUNS
numbers for resellers need to be added to both the data
dictionary and the appropriate templates. The October 16, 1995
How Report contained standards for Transmission Services
Information Timing Requirements. The most recent report
substantially changed these requirements. We request that the
report we are asking the How Group to submit by May 28, 1996
reinstate these requirements or explain why they should be
changed.
Second, and not surprisingly, the standards and protocols
must now be conformed to the requirements of the final rule. For
example, necessary changes include developing file and display
templates for curtailments and interruptions, developing file and
display templates to place primary and resale capacity on the
same displays and in the same downloadable files, and developing
file and display templates to place ancillary services provided
by the primary provider and others on the same display page and
in the same downloadable files.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xcv -
- xcv -
Under procedures we are instituting today, we expect the
recommendations for standards and protocols to be conformed to
the requirements of the final rule and for inconsistencies to be
corrected in the next few months. We are issuing portions of the
standards and protocols now to provide as much information as
possible to allow the industry to begin the work of building
necessary systems to make their OASIS nodes operational. This
information, coupled with the requirements of the Open Access
Final Rule and our additional procedures to complete the
Standards and Protocols, should result in the OASIS nodes being
operational within six months of the publication of this final
rule in the Federal Register.
The April 15, 1996 How Report contains references to a yet
to be established industry group, the [OASIS] Management
Organization, that will maintain a registry of [OASIS] node names
and perhaps perform other functions associated with maintaining a
functioning [OASIS]. We agree that there is a need for an
industry group to maintain a registry of OASIS node names and
perform similar functions and expect that such a group will be
established by the industry prior to the implementation of the
OASIS requirements. The Standards and Protocols, therefore,
contains a reference to this function. We expect that such a
group would be composed of representatives of all segments of the
electric industry and we expect to be apprised of the group's
activities.
1. Summary of Standards and
Communication Protocol Requirements
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xcvi -
- xcvi -
The Standards and Protocols, which we are adopting together
with this final rule, require Transmission Providers to make
their OASIS nodes accessible through the Internet. Each
Responsible Party's OASIS is considered to be a separate node.
An OASIS operated jointly by several utilities would be
considered one node. By connecting each node through the
Internet, transmission service information provided by each
utility becomes part of a network.
We are requiring that nodes must support the use of Internet
tools. The specific tools are described in the Standards and
Protocols. OASIS users will access nodes using World Wide Web
(WWW) browsers. 91/ Each node will display information using
the Hypertext Mark-up Language (HTML) protocol required by World
Wide Web browsers. Screen displays will consist of a series of
pages that may be viewed by customers without requiring the page
to be downloaded and viewed by separate software. The
information on each page, but not the actual displays, will be
standardized. Information must also be made available for
downloading, in a standardized ASCII 92/ format.
91/ The World Wide Web is a system of computer resources that
are accessed through the Internet.
A Browser is a computer program for retrieving and reading
hypermedia documents from the WWW. A hypermedia document
can contain text, graphics, video, sound or data. These
documents are often linked to other documents.
92/ ASCII refers to the American Standard Code for Information
Interchange, a code for character representation.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xcvii -
- xcvii -
In Phase I, customers will have access to the information
required to be posted by this rule and will be able to use the
OASIS to reserve transmission capacity. They will be able to
request capacity either by completing a standardized form
contained in an on-line HTML page or by uploading a filled-out
form using HTTP. Customers who want to resell transmission
capacity will upload (post) the relevant information to the same
OASIS node used by the primary provider from whom they purchased
the ATC. Customers will also be able to upload other
communications (e.g., Want Ads) containing such information as
requests to purchase transmission capacity.
OASIS nodes must provide direct connections to private
networks if requested to do so. The cost of the connections will
be paid for by the requestor and the networks are required to use
Internet tools.
The Standards and Protocols contain a model of the
information requirements that must be provided at each OASIS
node. Customers are limited to obtaining information from HTML
text displays and selecting from menus of downloadable files.
Customers will receive the information either as HTML pages or as
ASCII files in a predetermined form and layout.
For security purposes, and as an aid in auditing performance
and transactions, all customers are required to register with the
Responsible Party before they are permitted access to the
utility's transmission service information on the OASIS. As
registered subscribers, they will be allowed to read and download
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xcviii -
- xcviii -
information, make requests for transmission service, place "Want
Ads" and offer transmission service for resale. Commission staff
and staff of state regulatory authorities are to obtain free
"read only" access to the OASIS and members of the general public
will also be provided "read only" access to the OASIS for the
same usage fee paid by customers, once they have complied with
the requisite registration procedures.
Responsible Parties are required to meet a number of
performance standards and security precautions. Performance
requirements include sizing OASIS nodes to handle the loading of
registered subscribers, responding to subscriber requests,
backing up the system, and other areas that are necessary for the
system to function as desired.
2. Number of OASIS Nodes (Question 35)
The Commission proposed that Transmission Providers be
permitted to combine their separate OASIS nodes into a single
node. Thus, while there could be as many nodes as there are
transmission-owning utilities, if utilities choose to combine
together to create joint nodes, we could end up with a small
number of nodes.
A small number of nodes would minimize the networking
management requirements for the OASIS and would help ensure
access to the information systems. On the other hand, the
advantages of a small number of separate nodes must be weighed
against the greater complexity and size of a joint node that
would handle transactions for several large transmission-owning
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xcix -
- xcix -
utilities at one node. The Commission requested comments on
whether a small or large number of OASIS nodes should be
encouraged.
The majority of commenters preferred a small number of
nodes, but would not necessarily have the Commission require a
small number of nodes. 93/ Some commenters advocated regional
nodes. 94/ PJM speculated that, even if the Commission does
not encourage a small number of nodes, economies of scale and
market efficiencies will lead to smaller numbers in the normal
course of events. The How Group reported that significant
consolidation is already occurring:
it appears there may be 1 node in ERCOT, 13-14 nodes in
the Eastern Interconnection, and 6-20 nodes in the
Western Interconnection. The resulting 20-35 nodes
[nationwide] is a manageable number for Customers
maneuvering through the system and at the same time
minimizes the impact of possible security breaches or
system failures by being sufficiently distributed.
[95/]
Given these comments, we believe that the question of
whether there should be a small number of nodes is one best left
to the industry. At this stage, flexibility in such matters is
important.
3. Direct Connections to OASIS Nodes
(Question 36)
93/ See, e.g., Allegheny, Central Hudson, Central Illinois
Public Service, Com Ed, Continental Power Exchange, How
Group, Florida Power Corp, Montana Power, NERC, NYPP, Ohio
Edison, OK Com, PJM, PSNM, Seattle, Texas Utilities, and
VEPCO comments.
94/ See APPA, CCEM, ConEd, CSW, and MAPP comments.
95/ How Group comments at 19.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - c -
- c -
The Commission explained in the RIN NOPR that private
networks and third party services can provide valuable
contributions to the successful operation of an OASIS. 96/
The Commission, therefore, proposed to require utilities to
provide direct connections to the OASIS without the need to
obtain access through the Internet. We also proposed that the
cost of these connections be paid for by the customers making the
requests and that the networks be required to use the same
Internet tools as the Internet connections.
Most commenters preferred that the Commission not require
third-party connections to the OASIS in Phase I. 97/ Com Ed
asserted that direct connections would provide only marginal
benefits to the development of an OASIS, and that adding such
non-essential goals to OASIS requirements would jeopardize
utilities' ability to implement an OASIS on time. Montana Power
argued that direct connections would provide affluent large
marketers with information ahead of smaller users, and thus would
give them market power.
On the other hand, other commenters argued that such
connections are important. ConEd argued that direct connections
would help minimize the number of different connections customers
96/ For example, a private network could connect to one or more
OASIS nodes and offer users off-the-Internet connections at
faster speeds. Third parties could gather OASIS information
and repackage it into customized displays favored by
individual users.
97/ See, e.g., Allegheny, Com Ed, Montana, NERC, Ohio Edison, OK
Com, PJM, PSNM, and VEPCO comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - ci -
- ci -
must have. Continental Power Exchange sees direct connections as
allowing third parties to provide services that will add valuable
contributions to the successful operation of an OASIS. The How
Group reported that discussions among the parties in the group
indicated that direct connections would not be a problem as long
as the Responsible Party is compensated for the additional
service and given a reasonable time to make the connection.
All commenters addressing the subject of who should pay for
direct connections agreed that the cost should be paid by the
requesting party. 98/
CCEM and OK Com agreed that the direct connections should be
required to use the Internet tools required for the Internet
connection.
Finally, APPA asserted that, if private networks are created
to provide direct connections that are operated by partners or
affiliates of utilities, these networks could provide significant
performance advantages for the Transmission Provider's merchant
affiliates. APPA would require full public disclosure of such
partnership or affiliate relationships by the service provider.
We find that the How Group's position is reasonable. Direct
connections are feasible if the provider is compensated for the
additional service and is given a reasonable time to make the
connection. We will, therefore, require direct connections in
Phase I, upon request.
98/ See APPA, CCEM, ConEd, Continental Power Exchange, How
Group, and PJM comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cii -
- cii -
Moreover, such connections must be made available on an
equal basis to all requesting customers. We note, however, that
to the extent that the Transmission Provider is not the
Responsible Party, a direct connection is available only from the
Responsible Party. This being the case, APPA's concern that the
Transmission Provider's merchant services may gain an advantage
from an affiliate with a direct connection or private network
does not appear to be warranted, as anyone can obtain a direct
connection or the services of a private network.
4. Value-Added OASIS Services Provided
by Transmission Providers or
Responsible Parties
The Commission proposed in the RIN NOPR to permit
Transmission Providers or Responsible Parties to provide value-
added OASIS services, such as higher speed connections and
automatic notification of changed data.
NTEC argued that, unless these services are offered on a
non-discriminatory basis, public utilities could gain a
competitive advantage by offering these services solely to
affiliates. NTEC also requested the Commission to monitor the
"basic" and "premium" service packages to ensure that customers
need not pay a "premium" price to obtain basic services.
TAPS argued against any offering of value-added services.
They argued that smaller customers may not be able to afford such
services and that price could be used to discriminate against
them. TAPS proposed that instead of permitting value-added
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - ciii -
- ciii -
services, the Commission should include all OASIS costs in
transmission rates.
We agree with NTEC that value-added OASIS services should be
offered on a non-discriminatory basis. If a value-added service
is offered to anyone, it should be offered to everyone on the
same terms and conditions. Regarding NTEC's concern over basic
and premium services, we believe that the standards setting
process will ensure that the basic package of OASIS services will
provide all pertinent information and the means to retrieve it
that are necessary for the functioning of the Open Access
program.
The Commission will allow these services on a non-
discriminatory basis. Such services will remain cost-based until
the Commission is satisfied that market-based (value added) rates
should be allowed for such services. Requests for market-based
rates for such services will be addressed on a case-by-case
basis.
5. Transmission Services Information
Timing Requirements (Question 37)
In the NOPR, the Commission requested comments on several
timing requirements for posting transmission service information.
These are:
(1) Transmission Service Information Availability: The most
recent Provider transmission service information, including
updates reflecting power system changes, shall be available
to all Customers within 5 minutes of its scheduled posting
time at least 98 percent of the time. The remaining 2
percent of the time the transmission service information
shall be available within 10 minutes of its scheduled
posting time;
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - civ -
- civ -
(2) Notification of Posted or Changed Transmission Service
Information: Notification of transmission service
information posted or changed by a Provider shall be made
available within 60 seconds to all subscribed Customers who
are currently connected; and
(3) Acknowledgment by the Transmission Service Information
Provider: Acknowledgment by the transmission service
information provider of the receipt of Customer purchase
request/response requests shall occur within 1 minute for
Phase I. The actual negotiations and agreements on purchase
request/response requests do not have time constraints. For
Phase II, acknowledgment shall occur within 30 seconds.
Most commenters supported the Commission's proposals as
proposed 99/ or with some modification. 100/ CCEM
asserted that the proposed requirements for updating transmission
service information contained in Item (1) would lead to stale
information, and would result in customers using the telephone
and not the OASIS. CCEM asserted that the Phase I tolerances
should be reduced to 30 seconds and one minute respectively.
Continental Power Exchange asserted that items (1) and (2)
are good starting points. The Western Group suggested that Item
(1) would be adequate if it can be accomplished automatically.
Otherwise, it would recommend reducing the 98 percent compliance
requirement to 85 percent.
Some commenters agreed with the need for such standards, but
opposed incorporating timing performance standards in Phase I
standards. VEPCO asserted that these standards are too ambitious
for Phase I. Tallahassee argued that these timing requirements
99/ See, e.g., APPA, Duke, How Group, Florida Power Corp, NYPP,
and OK Com comments.
100/ See CCEM, Com Ed, Continental Power Exchange, PSNM, and
Western Group comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cv -
- cv -
may be too restrictive for small utilities whose staff and
technology capabilities will be strained by this rule. Central
Hudson proposed that response times be determined after OASIS is
implemented and users are comfortable with what they would expect
as adequate performance.
Most commenters agreed on the need for standards for how
quickly providers should post transmission service information.
Commenters argued that the requirements should be stricter, that
they are too strict, or that they are just right.
The Commission stated that information posting performance
requirements are needed to ensure that information is
disseminated in a timely manner by Transmission Providers. The
comments do not persuade us to change the proposed requirements.
We note that the April 15, 1996 How Report drops these
requirements. We request the How Group to reinstate these
requirements in the report we are inviting them to file on or
before May 28, 1996, or to explain why these requirements should
be dropped.
Commenters raise several additional points that need to be
addressed. First, Com Ed and others argued that these
requirements should not be in force during emergencies. The
Commission agrees.
Second, several commenters pointed out that the phrase
"available to all Customers" contained in Item (1) is ambiguous
and request that it should be replaced by "available on the
[OASIS]." We agree.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cvi -
- cvi -
Third, some commenters suggested that transmission service
requests and schedules be approved automatically, on a first
come, first served basis. The industry does not generally do
business in this manner today, and the Commission will not
require it in Phase I. We request the industry to address this
issue when developing requirements for Phase II.
6. Common Codes
a. Company Codes
The Commission's experience with implementing standards for
file transfers and electronic bulletin boards in the natural gas
industry shows that the use of a common system of identifying
companies enhances the efficiency of data transfers. The
Commission is satisfied with the results of using DUNS
numbers 101/ as the standard to uniquely identify pipelines
and shippers in the natural gas transactions. 102/ The
Commission proposed to require the use of DUNS numbers to
identify transmission-owning utilities and customers on OASIS
nodes.
Most commenters believed that DUNS numbers alone or DUNS
numbers in combination with names should be used. 103/ The
101/ DUNS numbers refer to the Data Universal Numbering System,
maintained by Dun and Bradstreet.
102/ See Standards for Electronic Bulletin Boards Required Under
Part 284 of the Commission's Regulations, Docket No. RM93-4-
001, Order 563-A, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations
Preambles, 30,994 at 31,034 (1994).
103/ See, e.g., Allegheny, CCEM, Com Ed, Continental Power
Exchange, How Group, OK Com, and PJM comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cvii -
- cvii -
How Group asserted that using DUNS numbers will enhance the
management of data from a computer perspective and allow
flexibility of business applications of OASIS in the future. The
How Group also asserted that having commonly used names is more
user friendly and proposed that the list of names and DUNs
numbers be maintained on a centralized registry.
Others believed that names alone would be sufficient.
104/ NERC and Ohio Edison believed that such standardization
should be left to the industry.
APPA asserted that DUNS numbers are primarily for private
companies and do not include many public power systems. Instead
of using DUNS numbers, APPA recommended using a numbering system
derived from Energy Information Administration forms: EIA-861
( Annual Electric Utility Report ) and EIA-867 ( Annual
Nonutility Power Producer Report ) as these forms appear to be
the most all-encompassing existing numbering system that could be
used for OASIS identification. Dun and Bradstreet have informed
staff that they will assign DUNS numbers, free of charge, to any
entity requesting a number.
The Commission will require the DUNS numbers as the unique
numerical identification of OASIS participants. The industry can
proceed to develop a naming convention as suggested in the
comments.
b. Common Location Codes
104/ See Seattle, VEPCO, and Western Group comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cviii -
- cviii -
The Commission's experience in the natural gas industry
demonstrates that a common method of uniquely identifying
location points will be needed to facilitate movement of power
across the grid. The Commission proposed to use a system to
identify locations and paths on the electric transmission grid.
Nearly all commenters who discussed the issue argued that
the Commission should not require common location codes. 105/
Several commenters argued that providing longitude and latitude
information for power plants and substations raises serious
national security issues. 106/
Many commenters see the need for a common naming convention
for paths and other facilities, such as that currently under
development by the How Working Group. 107/
The Commission is persuaded to drop the requirement for a
system for location codes and requests the industry to continue
development of a common naming convention to be implemented as
soon as practicable.
7. Data Definitions and File Formats
Not Covered by the Revised How
Report
a. Offers to Provide Ancillary
Services Provided by an Entity
Other Than the Transmission
Provider (Question 11)
105/ See Allegheny, APPA, CCEM, Continental Power Exchange, Duke,
How Group, ERCOT, Florida Power Corp, NERC, PJM, VEPCO, and
Western Group comments.
106/ See How Group, FPC, and NERC comments.
107/ See How Group, PSNM, and Western Group comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cix -
- cix -
In the RIN NOPR, the Commission requested the specifications
needed to post this information in HTML displays and the formats
needed to standardize uploadable and downloadable files
containing this information. This final rule requires that
information about ancillary services provided by an entity other
than the Transmission Provider be posted on the OASIS by
Responsible Parties and be displayed on the same page and in the
same file format as that of the Transmission Provider.
Although we did receive comments on this issue from various
parties, this was not an issue resolved by the revised How
Report. We would prefer that the How Group attempt to reach
consensus on this issue before we impose our own solution.
Therefore, we will include this issue among those that we are
requesting further input on before we address this issue in the
Standards and Protocols.
b. Offering of Primary and Secondary
Capacity
The Commission requested comments on how to redesign the
download templates in Appendix C of the NOPR so that primary and
secondary capacity can be offered through downloadable files that
have the same format. The Commission also requested comments on
how primary and secondary capacity can be displayed in the same
tables on an OASIS node. Posting secondary capacity requires
more information than for primary capacity and, thus, using the
same formats would require many more fields. We need information
on the design of those fields before we can set standards for the
display of this information.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cx -
- cx -
Although we did receive comments on this issue from various
parties, this was not an issue resolved by the revised How
Report. We would prefer that the How Group attempt to reach
consensus on this issue before we impose our own solution.
Therefore, we will include this issue among those that we are
requesting further comment on before we address this issue in the
Standards and Protocols.
8. Formats for Downloadable Files Not
Covered in the How Report
a. Standard Format for Data Used in
Calculating ATC (Question 16)
The Commission requested comments on how the data used in
calculating ATC should be formatted and asked whether the
information should be in free form text, predefined tables, or
comma delimited ASCII files. We also asked whether, if the
information is in free form text, it should be in plain ASCII
text or in a word processor format, such as WordPerfect or Word.
We deal with both of these issues in section H(2)(f) of this
final rule and in the regulations at 37.6(b)(2)(ii).
b. Standard Formats for Transmission
Studies (Question 23)
The Commission requested comments on how transmission
studies should be formatted for download from the OASIS. We deal
with this issue in section H(2)(g) of this final rule and in the
regulations at 37.6(b)(2)(iii).
c. Standard Format for Electronic
Submission to the Commission of
Transmission Tariffs (Question 6)
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxi -
- cxi -
In the RIN NOPR, the Commission proposed requiring that
Transmission Providers provide downloadable files of their
complete tariffs on the OASIS. 108/ The Commission requested
that commenters propose a standard format for electronic
submission of transmission tariffs to the Commission.
New formats continually are being developed by the computer
industry and it would be worthwhile to address this issue again
when the Commission addresses Phase II or remaining OASIS issues.
We will require utilities to provide tariff downloads from
their OASIS in the same format that they use to file with the
Commission.
9. Communication Protocol Issues
a. Internet Browsers
There are a large number of Internet browsers available
commercially and in the public domain. The How Report proposed
that browsers support "at least" HTML version 3 and "optionally"
support Secure Sockets Layer. The HTML standards used by
browsers change from time to time, and, in addition, various
browsers can support different extensions to the standards. The
Commission does not want to stifle innovation, but at the same
time it does want uniformity on the OASIS. The Commission does
not want customers to be forced to use different browsers for
different OASIS nodes. The Commission wants to ensure that a
108/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66186) and the
proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.9(c)(1) (60 FR 66200).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxii -
- cxii -
customer will be able to choose a browser and use it to access
all OASIS nodes.
To this end, the Commission requested comments on how to
ensure that a customer will be able to choose a browser and use
it to access all OASIS nodes.
Most commenters agreed that requiring browsers to support
HTML 3 would be sufficient to meet the needs of OASIS nodes and
customers at this time. 109/
CSW reported that while the specifications for HTML 3 are
still in draft mode, it is the first version of HTML to support
the table feature for browsing that the How Working Group wants
to use. NYPP would add encryption capabilities to the list of
standards. Ohio Edison would require JAVA-enabled browsers.
110/
OK Com recommended that the Commission adopt a primary
browser and two alternative browsers for use on OASIS nodes. PJM
asserted that, by requiring OASIS nodes to accommodate browsers
in common use, OASIS nodes would be able to become more
sophisticated as the Internet itself becomes more sophisticated.
Com Ed, ConEd and PSNM would leave the standard to the How
Group or an industry-wide OASIS Management Organization.
Most commenters agreed with the How Report that, requiring
OASIS nodes to support HTML 3 will allow browsers supporting this
109/ See, e.g., Allegheny, APPA, CCEM, and How Group comments.
110/ JAVA is a language that enables a browser to run programs
embedded in a WWW page.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxiii -
- cxiii -
standard to view documents on the OASIS. The Commission will
adopt the recommendation for HTML 3 contained in the How Report.
b. Bandwidth of Node Connections
to the Internet
At issue is the speed at which OASIS users will receive
information from OASIS nodes. A major determinant of the speed
are the bandwidth connections between the OASIS node and the
Internet. The How Report proposed a formula to compute the
required minimum bandwidth based on the number of registered
users of the node and the number of bits per second to be
received by users during HTML displays and downloads of files.
111/ These information transfers would include both the
receipt of HTML displays and downloads of files. The How Report
proposed to use a rate of 8,000 bits per second to determine
bandwidth. In the RIN NOPR, the Commission noted that an 8,000
bit per second transfer rate is much slower rate than the 28,800
bit per second transfer rate for telephone connections that many
private individuals and customers use to connect to the Internet.
The Commission expressed concern that using 8,000 bit per second
as the basis for the bandwidth calculation will lead to
connections that are too slow and proposed to use 28,800 bits per
second.
Many commenters agreed with the Commission. 112/ Com Ed
reported that a T1 communications line (1.54 million bits per
111/ How Report at 3.4.3.
112/ See, e.g., Allegheny, APPA, CSW, OK Com, PJM, and Seattle
comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxiv -
- cxiv -
second) could support 500 simultaneous customers using the
Commission's proposal of using 28,800 bits per second in the
bandwidth formula. Com Ed concluded that it is unlikely that an
OASIS node will experience 500 simultaneous users and that a T1
line is a reasonable upper limit, at this time. The How Group
reported that its members are currently paying between $1,500 and
$3,000 per month for T1 connections and concludes that it may be
cost effective to oversize the bandwidth even though a high
bandwidth does not automatically translate into higher access
speeds or download rates.
Several commenters preferred the 8,000 bits per second
originally proposed by the How Group. 113/ Ohio Edison
suggested that using a speed of 28,800 will dramatically increase
costs and may make joint OASIS nodes less attractive. The How
Group asserted that experience has shown that 8,000 bits per
second is a reasonable average rate for users of the Internet.
VEPCO stated that, while many customers will initially use modems
rated at 28,800 bits per second, their average data transfer rate
will be lower due to a number of factors. Nevertheless, VEPCO
asserted that an average of 8,000 bits per second is on the low
end of acceptability, especially if large files are to be
downloaded or if graphics files are to be viewed. Continental
Power Exchange proposed that the 19,200 bits per second be used
in the formula. It asserted that this is the fastest modem speed
achievable with Microsoft's Windows 3.1.
113/ See ConEd, How Group, and Ohio Edison comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxv -
- cxv -
APPA speculated that there may some areas in remote
locations that cannot secure a connection to the Internet with
adequate bandwidth to support the 28,800 bit per second standard.
After considering the comments, the Commission continues to
believe that 8,000 bits per second is too slow, especially when
large files must be transferred and when information is needed
promptly for business decisions. The Commission, therefore, will
require that a rate of 28,800 bits per second be used in the
minimum bandwidth calculation.
c. Data Compression Standards
In the RIN NOPR, the Commission expressed agreement with the
How Report that data compression will speed up the transmission
of files. 114/ We also expressed the belief that
communication of OASIS information would be enhanced if every
OASIS node used the same compression techniques. The Commission
requested comments on what data compression technique or
techniques should be made standard for all OASIS nodes.
Most commenters recommended that the "ZIP" file compression
standard be adopted as the common OASIS standard. 115/ The
How Group pointed out that the ZIP format is available for most
computer platforms. Some commenters, however, suggested that
setting a common compression technique is too detailed for a
Commission rulemaking. 116/
114/ How Report 3.3.8(c).
115/ See APPA, CCEM, ConEd, and PSNM comments.
116/ See NERC and Ohio Edison comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxvi -
- cxvi -
Most commenters supported using the "ZIP" file compression
standard on OASIS. This format is widely used for data
communication and the necessary software is available for most
computer platforms. The Commission will, therefore, require that
the ZIP standard be the data compression standard on OASIS nodes.
The Commission agrees that requiring compression for files
created for each HTTP request may be too complex for Phase I.
However, utilities may want to compress large files that would be
infrequently updated, such as tariffs. These files will benefit
from file compression and will not be subject to the complexities
of compressing the dynamically created HTTP files. The
Commission will require that static files residing on OASIS nodes
be compressed.
d. Other Communication Protocol Issues
Raised by Commenters
i. The Requirement to use FTP
for File Transfers
The October 16, 1995 How Report recommended requiring OASIS
nodes to use the Internet File Transfer Protocol (FTP) for file
uploads and downloads. In its comments, the How Group
recommended changing the file transfer method originally proposed
in the How Report from the FTP to the HTTP for data access,
including files upload and download to and from OASIS nodes. We
will accept this recommendation.
ii. Field Size for Path Names
The How Report proposed that path names be a 12-character
alphanumeric string. The March 7, 1996 filing by its How Group
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxvii -
- cxvii -
recommends that the 12 characters be changed to 50 alphanumeric
characters. Subsequent to the How Report, the How Group found
that 12 characters were insufficient to accommodate path names
and the associated regional identifiers.
We will await final recommendations concerning file formats
before ruling on this issue.
iii. Files Containing More Than
100,000 Bytes
The How Report recommended that customers not be required to
download any single file that is larger than 100,000 bytes in
order to access transmission information in electronic form. The
implication is that all files larger than 100,000 bytes must be
broken into sub-files.
Detroit Edison argued that there is no easy way to download
only a section of a file and that customers may prefer to
download one large file rather than 20 small ones.
We agree and will not require files to be broken into
100,000 byte segments at this time. In the event that a
restriction on file size becomes needed, it can be addressed in
Phase II.
K. COST RECOVERY ISSUES
1. Costs of Developing and Running an
OASIS (Question 34)
Transmission-owning public utilities are entitled to recover
the costs of developing and running an OASIS. Generally, these
costs will be fixed costs not attributable to individual users.
In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to include these costs in
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxviii -
- cxviii -
wholesale transmission rates. The Commission also proposed to
allow costs that can be identified as varying with usage to be
charged as usage fees to individual customers.
The commenters were nearly evenly split between those
favoring and opposing the Commission's proposals. NIEP argued
that rolling-in OASIS costs would distribute costs among all
transmission users equally and would be the only fair method of
allocating the cost of an OASIS. NIEP concludes that, if costs
were directly assigned to individual transmission users, these
users would be penalized by forcing them to pay the cost of
providing information which is available to, and used by, all
transmission users.
Many commenters objected to including OASIS costs in
wholesale transmission rates. They argued that it is
inappropriate to require network service customers (who may not
participate in wholesale sales transactions) to absorb the cost
of the OASIS. Indianapolis P&L claimed that it has no
significant, unique transmission paths and uses its transmission
assets to serve its native load customers. Consequently, most of
its OASIS costs would be borne by its native load customers.
Many commenters suggested alternatives to rolling in OASIS
costs. ConEd argued that, if all OASIS costs were included in
wholesale transmission rates, OASIS costs might not be fully
recovered since transmission use varies. To remedy this, ConEd
proposed rolling in part of the costs with the remainder to be
recovered through a monthly access fee. MAPP suggested usage
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxix -
- cxix -
fees based on cost causation, such as time access charges, fixed
fees for transmission requests and fees based on energy scheduled
over transmission secured on the OASIS. NSP suggested a fee
structure like other on-line information services, such as
America On Line, CompuServe, and Prodigy.
Several commenters saw other problems associated with
utility recovery of OASIS costs. Some called attention to
potential problems in recovering the costs of a joint OASIS.
MAPP pointed out that a jointly operated OASIS will not have
composite transmission tariffs from which to recover costs and
that a method was needed for utilities to recover joint expenses.
Detroit Edison speculated that a large number of the general
public could be connected to an OASIS at one time and thus limit
OASIS access to transmission users. To prevent this problem,
Detroit Edison proposed that fees be established to prevent
misuse or overuse of an OASIS.
It is appropriate that all wholesale transmission customers
and all unbundled retail transmission customers should pay a
share of OASIS development costs in their rates. Therefore, the
Commission concludes that the cost of developing an OASIS should
be included in unbundled transmission rates with variable costs
of operating an OASIS to be recovered, to the extent possible, in
usage fees. Individual rate proceedings will determine which
OASIS costs can be identified as varying with usage and how to
set the fees.
2. Costs of Posting Resales of
Capacity on the OASIS (Question 40)
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxx -
- cxx -
The Commission proposed that resales of capacity be posted
on the same page, and using the same display and downloadable
tables, as capacity being sold by the Transmission Provider.
This posting incurs an expense on the part of the Responsible
Party. The Commission proposed that each reseller must,
therefore, pay the costs of posting its own offering.
Most commenters believed that those posting secondary
services should pay the cost of posting. APPA proposed that the
incremental cost of posting should be recovered as a special fee
in the primary contract of transmission service. Ohio Edison
proposed a fee for each posting with a "true up" mechanism to
ensure that over time actual costs are recovered. Com Ed and
WP&L suggested a fee that is a percentage of revenue received
from the secondary postings.
NEPOOL suggested that this expense is unlikely to be
significant and, therefore, could be included in rates. NRECA
and NCEMC warned that posting fees not be set so high as to
discourage resale of capacity. OK Com argued that it would be
inappropriate to charge resellers of transmission capacity for
posting if the Transmission Provider is not also required to pay
a fee for posting.
After considering the comments, we have decided that there
should be no added fee for posting capacity resales. All OASIS
users, including the Transmission Provider, who post capacity pay
all the fixed costs of OASIS in wholesale rates and pay usage-
related variable costs in access fees. Thus, the costs of
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxi -
- cxxi -
posting resale capacity are already recovered. To require
resellers to pay additional fees for posting their products would
provide OASIS operators with a cost advantage.
3. Costs of Posting Ancillary Services on the
OASIS
The Commission proposed that entities posting offers to
provide ancillary services on the OASIS should pay the costs
associated with posting this information and requested comments
on how to determine these costs.
Commenters proposed various fee schemes to recover these
costs. Some were based on the cost of developing and maintaining
posting services, others were based solely on the incremental
cost of posting a notice. Some proposed to roll the costs into
wholesale transmission rates. Others proposed that utilities be
allowed make a profit from this service.
Arizona proposed an incentive scheme to keep costs down,
while Continental Power Exchange suggested that the method of
calculating these costs be left to the industry. PJM proposed a
fee based on the amount of person-hours and computer usage
required by such posting. ConEd argued that utilities should be
allowed to earn a profit on this service.
CSW submitted that posting costs cannot be broken out
individually and proposed that the costs for an OASIS should be
borne by all market participants on a fair basis. Florida Power
Corp argued that an OASIS is not a newspaper, and that
Transmission Providers are not in the publishing business;
therefore, OASIS services, including the posting of ancillary
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxii -
- cxxii -
services, should not be sold like classified ads. It proposed
that the cost of operating an OASIS should be rolled into
wholesale transmission rates. VEPCO also suggested that the cost
of posting ancillary services should be included in the cost of
the OASIS, with costs of specific evaluations of ancillary
service offers to be determined and posted on the OASIS.
After assessing the comments, we find that the cost of
developing the facilities needed to post ancillary services
required to be provided by the Open Access Final Rule should be
recovered through unbundled transmission rates. Any variable
costs of posting these services will be included in the general
OASIS usage fees. As for those ancillary services not required
to be provided, 117/ OASIS operators may charge a cost based
fee to those offering these services for the cost of posting.
L. SECTION 37.8 -- IMPLEMENTATION IN PHASES
1. Phase I Implementation
Implementation of this rule and the initial standards and
protocols will ensure that sufficient information is available to
transmission customers to achieve comparable access to
transmission information. They do not, however, provide all the
desired performance requirements.
Because of the complexity of developing an OASIS, and the
need to begin the transmission open access program promptly, the
Commission proposed a phased approach to OASIS implementation.
We proposed to require implementation of a Phase I OASIS as of
117/ See Open Access Final Rule generally at section IV.D.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxiii -
- cxxiii -
the effective date of the final rule on non-discriminatory open
access transmission and stranded costs (i.e., 60 days from
publication of this order in the Federal Register).
Comments
Many commenters argued that the proposed 60-day
implementation period is unrealistic in light of the amount of
work that must be done. ERCOT suggested that only portions of
the Phase I implementation could be accomplished within the 60-
day period. A vast majority of commenters suggested that an
implementation period of six months would be required.
Arizona and ConEd pointed out that, while plans for
implementation can begin in advance of the final rule, final
specifications and designs depend on the resolution of several
major Open Access Final Rule issues. ConEd also argued that all
new systems require a "Beta" test stage in which the system can
be tested before it is used in a production environment, and that
a 60-day implementation period will not permit such testing.
Similarly, NERC argued that more time is needed to make sure
workable administrative procedures are in place for consistency
in calculating, posting, and coordinating ATC. NEPOOL echoed
these comments, reporting that an implementation period of less
than six months would result in the development of OASIS nodes
across the nation that lack uniformity as each region complies
within a short deadline without time to coordinate with other
areas.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxiv -
- cxxiv -
Duke argued that a full six months will be needed because,
in addition to the difficult task of implementing OASIS, the Open
Access Final Rule will change the way the industry does business.
Duke argued that the coordination of resources necessary to
accommodate all of the discussions and decisions in developing
joint OASIS nodes is a more lengthy process than development of
an OASIS by each individual company. Duke asserted that a six-
month implementation period is needed to permit joint OASIS
projects to develop. 118/
SoCal Edison requested that the Commission delay
implementation until the requirements of the CA Com's California
Restructuring Order have been fully identified. Public
Generating Pool argued that the Northwest governors have
organized a review of the Northwest Power Act, the Bonneville
Power Act, and the northwest electric system in general, to be
completed by November 1996. Public Generating Pool argued that
the Commission should consider possible contributions to be made
by this forthcoming report and urged that the Commission not
ignore this work based on a need to meet self-imposed
unreasonable and unrealistic OASIS implementation dates.
The How Group, the Western Group and VEPCO suggested that,
if the Commission cannot extend the implementation period to six
months, then Phase I should itself be implemented in stages. The
How Group suggested a three-stage process that would begin with a
requirement for primary providers, within 120 days after issuance
118/ NERC made this same point in its comments.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxv -
- cxxv -
of the final rule, to post estimates of ATC and secondary
capacity for resale that might not be accurate. This would be
followed, within 180 days after issuance of the final rule, by
the posting of fully accurate secondary capacity information and
ATC information, and with Transmission Providers certifying,
within 210 days of the final rule, that all functionality and
performance requirements for OASIS have been met.
ConEd and Carolina P&L noted that OASIS implementation will
cause changes to utility operations, and requested that the
Commission schedule implementation during off-peak seasons, such
as the spring or fall, when they claim transmission systems are
under less stress.
Public Generating Pool and Tallahassee speculated that, if
publicly-owned utilities are considered to be under the
Commission's jurisdiction for OASIS purposes, they will need more
than a six-month implementation period because they may be
required to obtain funding approval from state or local oversight
commissions.
Discussion
Commenters make persuasive arguments for permitting a six-
month implementation period. They raise concerns that a shorter
period will not permit adequate time to design, build and
thoroughly test an OASIS. They also raise concerns that a
shorter period will inhibit the development of joint OASIS and
OASIS with a common look and feel. The Commission shares these
concerns. We also want to take into account commenters' requests
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxvi -
- cxxvi -
that implementation not be required during the peak winter or
summer months. For this reason, we are requiring compliance by
November 1, 1996, a specific date about six months from when we
expect this final rule to become effective, chosen to avoid the
winter and summer peak months. This date is provided in 37.8
of the final rule, which modifies the provision originally set
out in 37.15 of the RIN NOPR.
In addition, we will provide additional procedures to allow
the development of the remaining initial standards and protocols.
As described above, we invite the How Group to report to us on or
before May 28, 1996 on these issues (and to attach any comments
it has received from any interested person with opposing views).
For these reasons, the Commission will require
implementation of Phase I of OASIS to be operational by November
1, 1996..
2. Phase II Implementation
Once Phase I becomes operational, and the industry and
public gain experience with it, the full information and
functional requirements needed to support open access
transmission service will become clearer. In the RIN NOPR, the
Commission stated that it envisioned that Phase II would build on
Phase I and requested that the industry continue the process of
developing standards, and provide a consensus report to the
Commission on Phase II recommendations by January 1, 1997.
Most commenters argued that the proposed January 1997 date
is too ambitious. Southern argued that this date does not
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxvii -
- cxxvii -
provide enough time for the industry to gain experience with
Phase I. Tallahassee and others suggested that Phase II should
not be implemented until at least one year after Phase I is
implemented. Continental Power Exchange asserted that Phase II
will be a continuum of development from the first day of Phase I
implementation. NRECA suggested that, if Phase I turns out to be
inadequate, then Phase II should be accelerated.
We are sensitive to commenters' concerns about the time
between the implementation of Phase I and Phase II. At the same
time, the need for the additional functions and performance
requirements proposed for Phase II will, we believe, need to be
implemented quickly. Accordingly, the industry should continue
the process of developing standards, and attempt to develop a
consensus report on Phase II recommendations by no later than
seven months after implementation of Phase I [insert date of
first business day on or after 390 days after publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register]. We anticipate that this
report would be the basis for supplemental OASIS proceedings to
Phase II OASIS requirements. The additional time should permit
the industry to obtain sufficient experience with Phase I before
it recommends specifications for Phase II.
We believe that it may be appropriate to require the
scheduling of energy transfers on the OASIS in Phase II.
Electronic scheduling of energy transfers over the OASIS would
increase efficiency. We, therefore, request that the industry
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxviii -
- cxxviii -
incorporate standards for the scheduling of energy transfers on
OASIS into the Phase II report.
IV. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 119/ requires the
Commission to describe the impact that any proposed or final rule
would have on small entities or to certify that the rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The entities that would
have to comply with the final rule are public utilities and
transmitting utilities that do not fall within the RFA's
definition of small entities. 120/ Therefore, under section
605(b) of the RFA, the Commission hereby certifies that this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on small
entities within the meaning of the RFA. Accordingly, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required pursuant to section
603 of the RFA.
119/ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
120/ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) and 601(6) and 15 U.S.C. 632(a).
The RFA defines a small entity as one that is independently
owned and not dominant in its field of operation. See 15
U.S.C. 632(a). In addition, the Small Business
Administration defines a small electric utility as one that
disposes of 4 million MWh or less of electric energy in a
given year. See 13 CFR 121.601 (Major Group 49-Electric,
Gas and Sanitary Services) (1995).
In the Open Access Final Rule, issued contemporaneously with
this final rule, we conclude that, under these definitions,
the Open Access Final Rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a significant number of small entities.
As this final rule only implements the OASIS requirements of
the Open Access Final Rule, the same conclusion is warranted
here, for the same reasons.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxix -
- cxxix -
In its comments, NRECA questioned the Commission's
conclusion that the RIN NOPR did not need to be accompanied by an
RFA analysis. NRECA's argument was based on its concern that the
Commission might extend OASIS requirements to non-public,
not-for-profit cooperative utilities. NRECA argued that, if this
were to happen, the Commission would then have to analyze the
effect of the OASIS requirements on these utilities and show that
the requirements would not have a substantial economic impact
upon them. However, as proposed in the RIN NOPR, the
Commission's OASIS regulations will apply only to public
utilities that own, operate, or control transmission facilities
subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. As noted immediately
above, public utilities do not fall within the RFA's definition
of a "small entity." In addition, as discussed earlier, and as
discussed in the Open Access Final Rule, there will be a
provision for a waiver for small entities. This responds to
NRECA's concerns.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Commission regulations require that an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement be prepared for a
Commission action that may have a significant effect on the human
environment. 121/ Although this final rule does not directly
affect any physical transmission facilities, but merely requires
121/ Regulations Implementing National Environmental Policy Act,
Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987); 1986-90
Regulations Preambles, FERC Stats. & Regs. 30,783 (Dec.
10, 1987) (codified at 18 CFR Part 380).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxx -
- cxxx -
the electronic posting by computers of certain information about
transmission availability and prices, it nevertheless is covered
by the Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in the Open
Access NOPR proceeding in Docket Nos. RM95-8-000 and RM94-7-001
on April 12, 1996. Thus, no separate environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement has been prepared in this
proceeding.
VI. INFORMATION COLLECTION STATEMENT
There are now approximately 328 public utilities, including
marketers and wholesale generation entities. The Commission
estimates that approximately 166 of these utilities own, operate,
or control facilities used for the transmission of electric
energy in interstate commerce and thus are subject to this rule.
However, since the operation of an OASIS will be closely
associated with control areas, we assume that an OASIS will be
developed at the control area level and not by each public
utility that owns, operates, or controls interstate transmission
facilities. We also expect that some additional OASIS nodes will
be created voluntarily by non-public utilities subject to these
regulations under the reciprocity condition of the pro forma
tariffs. We estimate, therefore, that 140 respondents will be
required to collect information. We believe that this estimate
is conservative (on the high side) because some regions are
likely to develop a region-wide OASIS that will cover more than
one control area. 122/
122/ See supra (discussion quoted from How Report at 80).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxxi -
- cxxxi -
This estimate is higher than the one we included in the RIN
NOPR, where we estimated that there would be 84 respondents. We
have adjusted our estimate in response to the arguments advanced
by NRECA and NE Public Power District, in separate letters to
OMB, that the Commission's Information Collection Statement
contained in the RIN NOPR failed to account for the proposal in
the Open Access NOPR that, because of the reciprocity
requirement, non-public utilities and cooperatives entering
contracts for open access transmission services would be required
to establish their own OASIS nodes or participate in a regional
OASIS node.
NRECA also argued that the Commission's analysis must
include not only those entities that are developing their own
OASIS node, but also those entities who, while they are not
developing and operating their own OASIS node, nevertheless will
contribute data to their control area operators or regional OASIS
operators. NRECA argued, therefore, that the Commission's
estimate of the number of respondents should have taken this into
account. It did.
Although not explicitly stated in the RIN NOPR, the
Commission's Information Collection Statement, both in this final
rule and in the RIN NOPR, has been based not only on the efforts
by the respondents who will directly operate OASIS nodes but also
reflects the collection of information from all significant
participants in the transmission market.
Information Collection Statement:
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxxii -
- cxxxii -
Title: FERC-717, Real-Time Information Network Standards
Action: Final Rule
OMB Control No: 1902-0173
Respondents: Public Utilities that own and/or control
facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce.
Frequency of Responses: On Occasion
Necessity of the information: The final rule requires affected
public utilities to comply with requirements for an Open Access
Same-time Information System (OASIS) established by the
Commission to give potential customers access to information, by
electronic means, that would ensure the availability of open
access wholesale transmission service on a non-discriminatory
basis. These requirements would support arrangements made for
wholesale sales and purchases for third parties. Public
utilities or their agents will be required to give competitors
and other users of the transmission system access to the same
information available to public utility personnel who initiate
the acquisition or disposition of power in the wholesale market
and at the same time. The Commission will use the information to
monitor the networks to ensure that potential purchasers of
transmission services obtain the services on a non-discriminatory
basis. This final rule was developed after a review of comments
filed in response to issuance of a notice of public rulemaking.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxxiii -
- cxxxiii -
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations,
123/ require OMB to approve certain information collection
requirements imposed by agency rule. The information collection
requirements in the final rule will be reported directly to
transmission users and will be subject to subsequent audit by the
Commission. The distribution of these data will help the
Commission carry out its responsibilities under Part II of the
FPA.
The Commission is submitting notification of this final rule
to OMB. Interested persons may obtain information on the
reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.
20426 [Attention Michael Miller, Information Services Division,
(202) 208-1415], and to the Office of Management and Budget
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (202) 395-3087].
VII. EFFECTIVE DATE
The regulations of new Part 37 will become effective on
[insert date 60 days after the date of publication of this final
rule in the Federal Register]. The Commission has determined,
with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that the Open Access
Final Rule and the OASIS final rule together constitute a "major
rule" as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory
123/ 5 CFR 1320.11.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxxiv -
- cxxxiv -
Enforcement Act of 1996. 124/ The rule will be submitted to
both Houses of Congress and the Comptroller General prior to its
publication in the Federal Register. All of the requirements
prescribed in the standards of conduct must be complied with and
Phase I OASIS sites that meet the requirements prescribed in this
final rule must be in operation by November 1, 1996.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 37
Open Access Same-Time Information System
By the Commission.
( S E A L )
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
124/ 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxxv -
- cxxxv -
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends
Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, to add a new Part
37, as set forth below.
PART 37 -- OPEN ACCESS SAME-TIME INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES
Sec.
37.1 Applicability.
37.2 Purpose.
37.3 Definitions.
37.4 Standards of conduct.
37.5 Obligations of Transmission Providers
and Responsible Parties.
37.6 Information to be posted on an OASIS.
37.7 Auditing Transmission Service Information.
37.8 Implementation schedule for OASIS requirements; phases.
AUTHORITY: 16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.
37.1 Applicability.
This part applies to any public utility that owns, operates,
or controls facilities used for the transmission of electric
energy in interstate commerce and to transactions performed under
the pro forma tariff required in Part 35 of this Chapter.
37.2 Purpose.
(a) The purpose of this part is to ensure that potential
customers of open access transmission service receive access to
information that will enable them to obtain transmission service
on a non-discriminatory basis from any Transmission Provider.
These rules provide standards of conduct and require the
Transmission Provider (or its agent) to create and operate an
Open Access Same-time Information System (OASIS) that gives all
users of the open access transmission system access to the same
information.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxxvi -
- cxxxvi -
(b) The OASIS will provide information by electronic means
about available transmission capability for point-to-point
service and will provide a process for requesting transmission
service. OASIS will enable Transmission Providers and
Transmission Customers to communicate promptly requests and
responses to buy and sell available transmission capacity offered
under the Transmission Provider's tariff.
37.3 Definitions.
(a) Transmission Provider means any public utility that
owns, operates, or controls facilities used for the transmission
of electric energy in interstate commerce.
(b) Transmission Customer means any eligible customer (or
its designated agent) that can or does execute a transmission
service agreement or can or does receive transmission service.
(c) Responsible Party means the Transmission Provider or an
agent to whom the Transmission Provider has delegated the
responsibility of meeting any of the requirements of this Part.
(d) Reseller means any Transmission Customer who offers to
sell transmission capacity it has purchased.
(e) Wholesale Merchant Function means the sale for resale,
or purchase for resale, of electric energy in interstate
commerce.
(f) Affiliate means: (1) for any exempt wholesale
generator, as defined under section 32(a) of the Public Utility
Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended, the same as provided in
section 214 of the Federal Power Act; and
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxxvii -
- cxxxvii -
(2) for any other entity, the term affiliate has the same
meaning as given in 161.2(a) of this Chapter.
37.4 Standards of conduct.
A Transmission Provider must conduct its business to conform
with the following standards:
(a) General Rules (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, the employees of the Transmission
Provider engaged in transmission system operations must function
independently of its employees, or the employees of any of its
affiliates, who engage in Wholesale Merchant Functions.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provisions in this section,
in emergency circumstances affecting system reliability,
Transmission Providers may take whatever steps are necessary to
keep the system in operation. Transmission Providers must report
to the Commission and on the OASIS each emergency that resulted
in any deviation from the standards of conduct, within 24 hours
of such deviation.
(b) Rules governing employee conduct (1) Prohibitions.
Any employee of the Transmission Provider, or any employee of an
affiliate, engaged in wholesale merchant functions is prohibited
from: (i) conducting transmission system operations or
reliability functions; and
(ii) having access to the system control center or similar
facilities used for transmission operations or reliability
functions that differs in any way from the access available to
other open access Transmission Customers.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxxviii -
- cxxxviii -
(2) Transfers. Employees engaged in either (i) wholesale
merchant functions or (ii) transmission system operations or
reliability functions are not precluded from transferring between
such functions as long as such transfer is not used as a means to
circumvent the standards of conduct of this section. Notices of
any employee transfer to or from transmission system operations
or reliability functions must be posted on the OASIS as provided
in 37.6 (g)(3). The information to be posted must include:
the name of the transferring employee, the respective titles held
while performing each function (i.e., on behalf of the
Transmission Provider and wholesale merchant or affiliate), and
the effective date of the transfer. The information posted under
this section must remain on the OASIS for 90 days.
(3) Information Access. Any employee of the Transmission
Provider, or of any of its affiliates, engaged in wholesale
merchant functions: (i) shall have access to only that
information available to the Transmission Provider's open access
transmission customers (i.e., the information posted on an
OASIS), and must not have preferential access to any information
about the Transmission Provider's transmission system that is not
available to all users of an OASIS; and
(ii) is prohibited from obtaining information about the
Transmission Provider's transmission system (including
information about available transmission capability, price,
curtailments, ancillary services, and the like) through access to
information not posted on the OASIS that is not otherwise also
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxxxix -
- cxxxix -
available to the general public without restriction, or through
information through the OASIS that is not also publicly available
to all OASIS users.
(4) Disclosure. A Transmission Provider is responsible for
ensuring compliance with the following provisions: (i) Any
employee of the Transmission Provider, or any employee of an
affiliate, engaged in transmission system operations or
reliability functions may not disclose to employees of the
Transmission Provider, or any of its affiliates, engaged in
wholesale merchant functions any information concerning the
transmission system of the Transmission Provider or the
transmission system of another (including information received
from non-affiliates or information about available transmission
capability, price, curtailments, ancillary services, etc.)
through non-public communications conducted off the OASIS,
through access to information not posted on the OASIS that is not
at the same time available to the general public without
restriction, or through information on the OASIS that is not at
the same time publicly available to all OASIS users (such as E-
mail).
(ii) If an employee of the Transmission Provider engaged in
transmission system operations or reliability functions discloses
information not posted on the OASIS in a manner contrary to the
requirements of the standards of conduct, the Transmission
Provider must immediately post such information on the OASIS.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxl -
- cxl -
(iii) A Transmission Provider may not share any market
information, acquired from nonaffiliated Transmission Customers
or potential nonaffiliated Transmission Customers, or developed
in the course of responding to requests for transmission or
ancillary service on the OASIS, with its own employees (or those
of an affiliate) engaged in merchant functions, except to the
limited extent information is required to be posted on the OASIS
in response to a request for transmission service or ancillary
services.
(5) Implementing Tariffs. (i) Employees of the
Transmission Provider engaged in transmission system operations
or reliability functions must strictly enforce all tariff
provisions relating to the sale or purchase of open access
transmission service, if these provisions do not provide for the
use of discretion.
(ii) Employees of the Transmission Provider engaged in
transmission system operations must apply all tariff provisions
relating to the sale or purchase of open access transmission
service in a fair and impartial manner that treats all customers
(including the public utility and any affiliate) in a non-
discriminatory manner, if these provisions involve discretion.
(iii) The Transmission Provider must keep a log, available
for Commission audit, detailing the circumstances and manner in
which it exercised its discretion under any terms of the tariff.
(iv) The Transmission Provider may not, through its tariffs
or otherwise, give preference to wholesale purchases or sales
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxli -
- cxli -
made on behalf of its own power customers, or those of an
affiliate, over the interests of any other wholesale customer in
matters relating to the sale or purchase of transmission service
(including issues of price, curtailments, scheduling, priority,
ancillary services, etc.).
(v) If the Transmission Provider offers a discount on
purchases of transmission service made on behalf of its own power
customers or those of any affiliate, then, at the same time, it
must post on the OASIS an offer to provide the same discount to
all Transmission Customers on the same path and on all
unconstrained transmission paths.
(vi) If the Transmission Provider offers a rate discount on
ancillary services to an affiliate, or attributes a discounted
ancillary service rate to its own transactions, the Transmission
Provider must, at the same time, post on the OASIS an offer to
provide the same discount to all eligible customers.
(6) Books and Records. A Transmission Provider must maintain
its books of account and records (as prescribed under Parts 101
and 125 of this Chapter) separately from those of its affiliates
and these must be available for Commission inspection.
(c) Maintenance of written procedures. The Transmission
Provider must maintain in a public place, and file with the
Commission, current written procedures implementing the standards
of conduct in such detail as will enable customers and the
Commission to determine that the Transmission Provider is in
compliance with the requirements of this section.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxlii -
- cxlii -
37.5 Obligations of Transmission Providers and Responsible
Parties.
(a) Each Transmission Provider is required to provide for
the operation of an OASIS, either individually or jointly with
other Transmission Providers, in accordance with the requirements
of this Part. The Transmission Provider may delegate this
responsibility to a Responsible Party such as another
Transmission Provider, an Independent System Operator, a Regional
Transmission Group, or a Regional Reliability Council.
(b) A Responsible Party must: (1) provide access to an
OASIS providing standardized information relevant to the
availability of transmission capacity, prices, and other
information (as described in this Part) pertaining to the
transmission system for which it is responsible; and
(2) shall operate the OASIS in compliance with the
standardized procedures and protocols found in OASIS Standards
and Communication Protocols, which can be obtained from the
Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, Room 2A, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
(c) Transmission Providers must provide "read only" access
to the OASIS to Commission staff and the staffs of State
regulatory authorities, at no cost, after such staff members have
complied with the requisite registration procedures.
37.6 Information to be posted on an OASIS.
(a) The information posted on the OASIS must be in such
detail as to allow Transmission Customers to: (1) make requests
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxliii -
- cxliii -
for transmission services offered by Transmission Providers,
Resellers and other providers of ancillary services;
(2) view and download in standard formats, using standard
protocols, information regarding the transmission system
necessary to enable prudent business decision making;
(3) post, view, upload and download information regarding
available products and desired services;
(4) clearly identify the degree to which their transmission
service requests or schedules were denied or interrupted; and
(5) obtain access, in electronic format, to information to
support available transmission capability calculations and
historical transmission service requests and schedules for
various audit purposes.
(b) Posting transmission capability. The transmission
capability that is expected to be available on the Transmission
Provider's system (ATC) and the total transmission capability
(TTC) of that system shall be calculated and posted for each
Posted Path as set out in this section.
(1) Definitions. For purposes of this section,
(i) Posted Path means any control area to control area
interconnection; any path for which service is denied, curtailed
or interrupted for more than 24 hours in the past 12 months; and
any path for which a customer requests to have ATC or TTC posted.
For this last category, the posting must continue for 180 days
and thereafter until 180 days have elapsed from the most recent
request for service over the requested path. For purposes of
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxliv -
- cxliv -
this definition, an hour includes any part of an hour during
which service was denied, curtailed or interrupted.
(ii) Constrained Posted Path means any posted path having an
ATC less than or equal to 25 percent of TTC at any time during
the preceding 168 hours or for which ATC has been calculated to
be less than or equal to 25 percent of TTC for any period during
the current hour or the next 168 hours.
(iii) Unconstrained Posted Path means any posted path not
determined to be a constrained posted path.
(2) Calculation methods, availability of information, and
requests. (i) Information used to calculate any posting of ATC
and TTC must be dated and time-stamped and all calculations shall
be performed according to consistently applied methodologies
referenced in the Transmission Provider's transmission tariff and
shall be based on current industry practices, standards and
criteria.
(ii) On request, the Responsible Party must make all data
used to calculate ATC and TTC for any constrained posted paths
publicly available (including the limiting element(s) and the
cause of the limit (e.g., thermal, voltage, stability)) in
electronic form within one week of the posting. The information
is required to be provided only in the electronic format in which
it was created, along with any necessary decoding instructions,
at a cost limited to the cost of reproducing the material. This
information is to be retained for six months after the applicable
posting period.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxlv -
- cxlv -
(iii) System planning studies or
specific network impact studies performed for customers to
determine network impacts are to be made publicly available in
electronic form on request and a list of such studies shall be
posted on the OASIS. A study is required to be provided only in
the electronic format in which it was created, along with any
necessary decoding instructions, at a cost limited to the cost of
reproducing the material. These studies are to be retained for
two years.
(3) Posting. The ATC and TTC for all Posted Paths must be
posted in megawatts by specific direction and in the manner
prescribed in this subsection.
(i) Constrained Posted Paths.
(A) For Firm ATC and TTC: (1) The posting shall show ATC
and TTC for a 30-day period. For this period postings shall be:
by the hour, for the current hour and the 168 hours next
following; and thereafter, by the day. If the Transmission
Provider charges separately for on-peak and off-peak periods in
its tariff, ATC and TTC will be posted daily for each period.
(2) Postings shall also be made by the month, showing for
the current month and the 12 months next following.
(3) If planning and specific requested transmission studies
have been done, seasonal capability shall be posted for the year
following the current year and for each year following to the end
of the planning horizon but not to exceed 10 years.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxlvi -
- cxlvi -
(B) For Non-Firm ATC and TTC. The posting shall show ATC
and TTC for a 30-day period by the hour and days prescribed under
paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A)(1) of this section and, if so requested,
by the month and year as prescribed under paragraph
(b)(3)(i)(A)(2) and (3) of this section.
(C) Updating Posted Information for Constrained Paths.
(1) The capability posted under paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) and
(B) of this section must be updated when transactions are
reserved or service ends or whenever the TTC estimate for the
Path changes by more than 10 percent.
(2) All updating of hourly information shall be made on the
hour.
(ii) Unconstrained Posted Paths. (A) Postings of ATC and
TTC shall be by the day, showing for the current day and the next
six days following and thereafter, by the month for the 12 months
next following. If the Transmission Provider charges separately
for on-peak and off-peak periods in its tariff, ATC and TTC will
be posted for the current day and the next six days following for
each period. These postings are to be updated whenever the ATC
changes by more than 20 percent of the Path's TTC.
(B) If planning and specific requested transmission studies
have been done, seasonal capability shall be posted for the year
following the current year and for each year following until the
end of the planning horizon but not to exceed 10 years.
(c) Posting Transmission Service Products and Prices. (1)
Transmission Providers must post prices and a summary of the
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxlvii -
- cxlvii -
terms and conditions associated with all transmission products
offered to Transmission Customers.
(2) Transmission Providers must provide a downloadable file
of their complete tariffs in the same electronic format as the
tariff is filed with the Commission.
(3) A Transmission Provider, within 24 hours of agreeing to
sell transmission service to a non-affiliate at a discount (as
measured from when ATC must be adjusted in response to the
transaction), must post on the OASIS (and make available for
download) information describing the transaction (including
price, quantity, and any other relevant terms and conditions) and
shall keep such information posted on the OASIS for at least 30
days. A record of the transaction must be retained and kept
available as part of the audit log required in section 37.7.
With respect to any discount offered to its own power customers
or its affiliates, the Transmission Provider must, at the same
time, post on the OASIS an offer to provide the same discount to
all Transmission Customers on the same path and on all
unconstrained transmission paths.
(4) Customers choosing to use the OASIS to offer for resale
transmission capacity they have purchased must post relevant
information to the same OASIS as used by the one from whom the
Reseller purchased the transmission capacity. This information
must be posted on the same display page, using the same tables,
as similar capability being sold by the Transmission Provider,
and the information must be contained in the same downloadable
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxlviii -
- cxlviii -
files as the Transmission Provider's own available capability. A
customer reselling transmission capacity without the use of an
OASIS must, nevertheless, inform the original Transmission
Provider of the transaction within the time limits prescribed by
the "Sale or Assignment of Transmission Service" section of the
pro forma tariff.
(d) Posting Ancillary Service Offerings and Prices. (1)
Any ancillary service required to be provided or offered under
the pro forma tariff prescribed by Part 35 of this Chapter must
be posted with the price of that service.
(2) A Transmission Provider, within 24 hours of agreeing to
sell an ancillary service to a non-affiliate at a discount, must
post on the OASIS (and make available for download) information
describing the transaction (including price, quantity, and any
other relevant terms and conditions) and shall keep such
information posted on the OASIS for at least 30 days. A record
of the transaction must be retained and kept available as part of
the audit log required in 37.7. As to discounts for ancillary
services, if a Transmission Provider offers a rate discount to an
affiliate, or attributes a discounted ancillary service rate to
its own transactions, the Transmission Provider must, at the same
time, post on the OASIS an offer to provide the same discount to
all eligible customers.
(3) Any other interconnected operations service offered by
the Transmission Provider may be posted, with the price for that
service.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cxlix -
- cxlix -
(4) Any entity offering an ancillary service shall have the
right to post the offering of that service on the OASIS if the
service is one required to be offered by the Transmission
Provider under the pro forma tariff prescribed by Part 35 of this
Chapter. Any entity may also post any other interconnected
operations service voluntarily offered by the Transmission
Provider. Postings by customers and third parties must be on the
same page, and in the same format, as postings of the
Transmission Provider.
(e) Posting Specific Transmission Service Requests and
Responses.
(1) General Rules. (i) All requests for transmission
service offered by Transmission Providers under the pro forma
tariff must be made on the OASIS. Requests for transmission
service, and the responses to such requests, must be conducted in
accordance with the Transmission Provider's tariff, the Federal
Power Act, and Commission regulations.
(ii) In processing a request for transmission or ancillary
service, the Responsible Party shall post the following
information: the date and time when the request is made, its
place in any queue, the status of that request, and the result
(accepted, denied, withdrawn).
(iii) The identity of the parties will be masked -- if
requested -- during the negotiating period and for 30 days from
the date when the request was accepted, denied or withdrawn.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cl -
- cl -
(2) Posting when a request for transmission service is
denied. (i) When a request for service is denied, the
Responsible Party must provide the reason for that denial as part
of any response to the request.
(ii) Information to support the reason for the denial,
including the operating status of relevant facilities, must be
maintained for 60 days and provided, upon request, to the
potential Transmission Customer.
(iii) Any offer to adjust operation of the Transmission
Provider's System to accommodate the denied request must be
posted and made available to all Transmission Customers at the
same time.
(3) Posting when a transaction is curtailed or interrupted.
(i) When any transaction is curtailed or interrupted, the
curtailment or interruption must be posted (with the identities
of the parties masked as required in 37.6(e)(1)(iii)) and must
state the reason why the transaction could not be continued or
completed.
(ii) Information to support any such curtailment or
interruption, including the operating status of the facilities
involved in the constraint or interruption, must be maintained
for 60 days and provided, upon request, to the curtailed or
interrupted customer.
(iii) Any offer to adjust the operation of the Transmission
Provider's system to restore a curtailed or interrupted
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - cli -
- cli -
transaction must be posted and made available to all curtailed
and interrupted Transmission Customers at the same time.
(f) Posting Transmission Service Schedules Information.
Information on transmission service schedules must be recorded by
the entity scheduling the transmission service and must be
available on the OASIS for download. Transmission service
schedules must be posted no later than seven calendar days from
the start of the transmission service.
(g) Posting Other Transmission-Related Communications. (1)
The posting of other communications related to transmission
services must be provided for by the Responsible Party. These
communications may include "want ads" and "other communications"
(such as using the OASIS as a Transmission-related conference
space or to provide transmission-related messaging services
between OASIS users). Such postings carry no obligation to
respond on the part of any market participant.
(2) The Responsible Party is responsible for posting other
transmission-related communications in conformance with the
instructions provided by the third party on whose behalf the
communication is posted. It is the responsibility of the third
party requesting such a posting to ensure the accuracy of the
information to be posted.
(3) Posting Transfers. Notices of transfers of personnel
as described in 37.4(b)(2) shall be posted.
37.7 Auditing Transmission Service Information.
Docket No. RM95-9-000 - clii -
- clii -
(a) All OASIS database transactions, except other
transmission-related communications provided for under
37.6(g)(2), must be stored, dated, and time stamped.
(b) Audit data must remain available for download on the
OASIS for 90 days. The audit data are to be retained and made
available upon request for three years from the date when they
are first posted.
37.8 Implementation schedule for OASIS requirements; phases.
Each Transmission Provider must develop or participate in an
OASIS that meets the requirements of this Part and that is in
operation by November 1, 1996. Each Transmission Provider must
be in compliance with the standards of conduct prescribed in
37.4 by November 1, 1996.
- cliii -
Page 1 of 3
[NOTE: This attachment will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.]
ATTACHMENT 1
List of Commenters to RIN NOPR
Number Commenter Name Abbreviation
1 ABB Systems Control (ABB)
2 Allegheny Power Service Corporation (Allegheny)
3 American Electric Power (AEP)
4 American Public Power Association (APPA)
5 City of Anaheim, CA (Anaheim)
6 Arizona Public Service Company (Arizona)
7 Bangor Hydro-Electric Company (Bangor)
8 Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin EC)
9 Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
10 California PUC (CA Com)
11 Carolina Power & Light Company (Carolina P&L)
12 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. (Central Hudson)
13 Central Illinois Public
Service Company (Central Illinois Public Service)
14 CINergy Corporation (CINergy)
15 Coalition for a Competitive
Electric Market (CCEM)
16 Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU)
17 Commonwealth Edison Company (Com Ed)
18 Consolidated Edison Company (ConEd)
19 Consumers Power Company (Consumers Power)
20 Continental Power Exchange (Continental Power Exchange)
21 CSW Companies (CSW)
22 Dayton Power and Light Company (Dayton P&L)
23 Detroit Edison Company (Detroit Edison)
24 Duke Power Company (Duke)
25 Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
26 El Paso Electric Company (El Paso)
27 Electric Generation Association (EGA)
28 Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
29 Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy)
30 Florida Electric Power
Coordinating Group (Florida CG)
31 Florida Power Corporation (Florida Power Corp)
32 Florida PSC (FL Com)
33 Fuel Managers Association (Fuel Managers)
34 "How" Industry Working Group (EPRI) (How Group)
35 Idaho Power Company (Idaho)
36 Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IN Com)
37 Indianapolis Power & Light Company (Indianapolis P&L)
38 Klein, Stanley A. (Klein)
39 Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO)
- cliv -
40 Madison Gas and Electric Company (Madison G&E)
Page 2 of 3
41 Maine Public Service Company (Maine Public Service)
42 MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican)
43 Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP)
44 Minnesota Power & Light Company (Minnesota P&L)
45 Missouri Public Service Commission (MO & AK Com's)
46 Montana Power Company (Montana Power)
47 National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)
48 National Independent Energy Producers (NIEP)
49 National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association (NRECA)
50 Nebraska Public Power District (NE Public
Power District)
51 New England Power Pool (NEPOOL)
52 New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)
53 New York Power Pool (NYPP)
54 New York State Electric & Gas Corp. (NYSEG)
55 New York State PSC (NY Com)
56 NorAm Energy Services, Inc. (NorAm)
57 North American Electric
Reliability Council (NERC)
58 North Carolina Electric
Membership Corp. (NCEMC)
59 Northeast Texas Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (NTEC)
60 Northeast Utilities (NU)
61 Northern States Power Companies (NSP)
62 Nucor Corporation (Nucor)
63 Oak Ridge National Lab, Energy Division (Oak Ridge)
64 Ohio Edison Company (Ohio Edison)
65 Ohio PUC (Ohio Com)
66 Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OK Com)
67 Oklahoma Gas & Electric (Oklahoma G&E)
68 Omaha Public Power District (Omaha PPD)
69 Ontario Hydro (Ontario Hydro)
70 Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (Orange & Rockland)
71 Oregon Trail Electric
Consumers Cooperative (Oregon EC)
72 Otter Tail Power Company (Otter Tail)
73 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
74 PacifiCorp (PacifiCorp)
75 Pennsylvania - New Jersey - Maryland
Power Pool (PJM)
76 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PA Com)
77 Public Generating Pool (Public Generating Pool)
78 Public Service Company of New Mexico (PSNM)
79 Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)
80 Salt River Project (Salt River)
- clv -
81 San Diego Gas & Electric Company (San Diego G&E)
82 Seattle City Light (Seattle)
83 Services-Oriented Open Network
Technologies, Inc. (SONETECH)
Page 3 of 3
84 Sierra Pacific Power Company (Sierra)
85 South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G)
86 South Carolina Public
Service Authority (SC Public Service Authority)
87 Southern California Edison Company (SoCal Edison)
88 Southern Company Services, Inc. (Southern)
89 Southwest Transmission Dependent
Utility Group (Southwest TDU Group)
90 Southwestern Public Service Company (Southwestern)
91 Sunflower Electric Power Cooperative (Sunflower)
92 City of Tallahassee, FL (Tallahassee)
93 Tampa Electric Company (Tampa)
94 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
95 Texas Utilities Electric Company (Texas Utilities)
96 Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS)
97 Tucson Power Electric Power Company
(Tucson Power)
98 Union Electric Company (Union Electric)
99 United Illuminating Company (United Illuminating)
100 U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Research (DOE)
101 UTC, The Telecommunications
Association (UTC)
102 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO)
103 Western Group (Western Group)
104 Wisconsin Power & Light (WP&L)